To think the Daily Mail are taking the piss?

[DailyFailAreABunchOfCunts]

As you may infer from my NN I am not a fan. However I saw this on today's Mail online:

DM Link

For those who don't want to click it, the DM have mined the recent thread from a poster who lost her DS at a young age, and was asking if she WBU to still buy clothes for him and join clubs. I remember the thread as it was really moving and so clear that the poster was struggling with her grief.

The Mail has lifted the story - and the child's name - lock, stock and barrel. I'd be interested in MNHQ's view on this. I realise that posts are in the public domain but this feels so horribly invasive.

www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others

What is fair dealing?

Fair dealing is a term used to describe some limited activities that are allowed without infringing copyright. Briefly these are as follows:

Research and private study

Copying parts of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or of a typographical arrangement of a published edition for the purpose of research or private study is allowed under the following conditions:
    The copy is made for the purposes of research or private study.
    The copy is made for non-commercial purposes.
    The source of the material is acknowledged.
    The person making the copy does not make copies of the material available for a number of people.
Instruction or examination

Copying parts of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or a sound recording, film or broadcast for the purpose of instruction or examination is allowed under the following conditions:
    The copying is done by the student or the person giving instruction.
    The copying is not done via a reprographic process.
    The source of the material is acknowledged.
    The instruction is for a non-commercial purpose.
Criticism or review

Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:
    The work has been made available to the public.
    The source of the material is acknowledged.
    The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).
    The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review.
News reporting

Using material for the purpose of reporting current events is permitted provided that:
    The work is not a photograph.
    The source of the material is acknowledged.
    The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose.
Incidental inclusion

Incidental inclusion is where part of one work is unintentionally included in another. The incidental inclusion of a work in an artistic work, sound recording, film or broadcast is not an infringement.

A typical example of this would be a case where a news broadcast inadvertently captured part of a copyright work, such as some background music, or a poster that just happened to on a wall in the background.
Accessibility for someone with a visual impairment

It is considered fair dealing to make an accessible copy of a work for someone with a visual impairment if a suitable accessible version is not already available.
Parody or pastiche

There are exceptions in the law to permit limited use of a copyright work to make a parody or pastiche of the work without the need to seek permission. This should however be treated with caution, as at this stage there is not much guidance or case law rulings to follow. The IPO guidance states that the use must be “fair and proportionate” and, of course, this exception does not limit other rights the author may have (for example to object to defamatory or derogatory treatment).

For further details on UK fair dealing rules please refer to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act; Section 28 onwards covers this area in full.

Those outside the UK should consult the fair dealing / fair use sections of their own national legislation.

Most relevant piece from above is

The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification)

If MNHQ had the desire (which I suspect they don't) to pursue this, I think a good copyright lawyer would easily win this case.

I have reported again to ask MNHQ if they are going to issue any further comment on:

• What they are doing to address the fact that the DM have lifted this piece and not notified MNHQ - is this indicative of a wider agreement between the DM and MNHQ.

• Whether they have contacted the poster on the thread to warn her of the fact that her personal story is now on a national news website.

This is awful.

It's really worth being reminded that the shitty Daily Mail does this sort of thing.

You might think it's OK to give a bit of personal information on here, not imagining that hideous DM website will flagrantly abuse your choice.

I've often defended journalists and journalism on here. I think people often blame 'the media' unfairly, generically and lazily for things that they are quite right to report. I also think that taking general story ideas from issues being discussed Mumsnet when your publication is aimed at women of childbearing age is not 'lazy', but a good idea.

However, I think in this case, the Mail has got it horribly, horribly wrong. I don't know what that reporter was thinking. I sincerely hope she got the permission from the poster. She must have realised when she was gratuitously cutting and pasting the posts that what she was doing was a massive intrusion.

Awful.

Maryz I think it's quite clear that I'm not a lawyer. I however have quoted my sources, unlike you and others citing 10% and a third of content. Are YOU a lawyer?

This is mad

It's appalling they've used that poor ops child's name, what about the repercussions for her? I don't think her husband even knows the things she was telling us, it's left me feeling sick tbh.

effing hel. That's really bad.
And they will have been paid? How does the person who submitted that sleep at night?

Where did I say 'I'm sure it's illegal'.
Don't misquote me.

Where are you getting your 10% from? Where is limited getting her 'one third' from?

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised that the Fail have done this.

It was only a few months ago when a Fail reporter posted on the media requests board and then whined that she was being treated unfairly so MNHQ deleted the thread. This was after the reporter started sending nasty PMs to people. Absolutely ridiculous.

I often wonder how much revenue MN makes from additional site traffic from the Fail.

Where is limited getting her 'one third' from?

It's my job

Some people seem to think that because they feel it's morally wrong, that it is in some way illegal and MN should be forced to do something about it

I agree.

Well can you provide a link to the relevant legislation please? Thanks.

There is a big swing to ethical companies. People are sick of being exploited by the big guns. People can use their mouse to do the talking.

It wasn't you I directed my question to CandPthisyoufuckers

I work in the media - I can tell from looking at the reporters twitter page that she is very junior and inexperienced. She may have been told to write it by a more senior editor - I think its sickening but remember that the DM treat their staff like absolute shit.

Haranguing her personally on twitter may be unfair - if she is junior, on a very shit wage and unable to turn down her bosses demands.

Well haranguing a grieving mother is also unfair.