To think that the Daily Mail should be prevented from using mumsnet thread for its articles

[Atenco]

I am a bit concerned about the number of mumsnet threads appearing in the Daily Mail. IMHO this could end up being dangerous for some posters

someone's wedding gift response is a non story.

Obviously not buckinbronco, as it was picked up internationally. It might be something you're not interested in or disapprove of, but that's not the same thing.

I though Mumsnet owned the copyright on material on this site. Are they pursuing the DM through the courts? If not, why not?

But the DM aren't taking vast screeds of text directly and passing it off as their own work, they are reporting on a non story that originated on Mumsnet with quotes. Copyright isn't being infringed

I use this for support with my adoption I won't be doing so in the futher I would be so worried anything I post may go viral

It's only been picked up internationally as all news agencies are as lazy as each other. That's not some kind of proof that it's a public interest news story. It's just trashy.

Another thing I hate. Major international stories which are reported by tweets-from-other-people. @johndoe said "my heart goes out to the people of Paris" @boredhousewife too posted "such tragic news from Paris god bless" I mean FFS! Who cares what no bodies say about it? How is that journalism.

Someone upthread posted that part of MNs terms and conditions were:

No part of the site may be distributed or copied for any commercial purpose without express approval

Surely screenshotting posts and printing in them in the DM or publishing them on their website breaches this term? Or does that mean that MNHQ are approving the features? Surely not?

I agree Buckinbronco. it appears that, these days, 'journalism' amounts to trawling twitter and repeating what people have said. Even the BBC do it.

You can quote a % of any published work without breaching copyright.

The Wright Stuff love a MN thread. They just screenshot the posts and stick them on the TV complete with username.
It's always riveting to hear what the panel has to say. They loved the mantelpiece clock thread, but they do like to take the line of 'look what those weird mothers on MN are discussing now' then discuss it themselves.

The wedding cheque story was brought up at my birthday dinner by my friend, her partner and my DH!!! They had all heard it from different sources and wanted to discuss the sense entitlement. I just sat silently, they all looked at me, I stayed silent and the conversation moved on.

It appears that, these days, 'journalism' amounts to trawling twitter and repeating what people have said. Even the BBC do it.

These days? Apart from the twitter reference, journalists have always always repeated things that other people have said. That's how you do it. How do you think journalists get stories?

DS1 wants to be a journalist. Could be interesting.

I assume he won't be out and about looking for stories.

YABU, anything you post on the internet (whether you think it's public or not) is public. If you don't want it to potentially on the front page of their site, don't post it.

The DM are lazy shites though. They use a lot of content from Reddit as well for "news".

Sparkling.
I know a bunch of young journalists at various papers.
Let me know if you want any info for DS1.

So it's weird when we discuss it here and journalism when someone is paid to do it on the DM or the Matthew Wright?

Ah thanks Pagwatch. He's currently doing his A levels, and being a journalist is something he has mentioned. I am not sure he is the right nature IYKWIM.

Personally I think HQ are on cahoots with the DM give permission and that's how they get over their own copyright T&Cs

Any why shouldn't they? No such thing as bad publicity. This places membership quadrupled after swmnbn got her knickers in a twist very publicly.

Mouldies provided tabloid fodder over slow news Xmas too. Made for more members.

Mnet want others to know about Mnet. We're not guests we're a commodity.

Don't be silly, there is nothing MN can do, because it is perfectly legal to reproduce small sections of properly attributed copyrighted text. It is not a case of Mumsnet HQ 'letting' them do anything as legally they can't prevent them. For good, reason too, how would you write book reviews if you couldn't quote from the text. Likewise, my PhD thesis which I'm hoping to turn into a book has over a 1000 references in it. Seeking permission for each of them would take years and make publication unviable.

*Today 11:02 limitedperiodonly

It appears that, these days, 'journalism' amounts to trawling twitter and repeating what people have said. Even the BBC do it.

These days? Apart from the twitter reference, journalists have always always repeated things that other people have said. That's how you do it. How do you think journalists get stories?*

It's just not the same. Reporting on the Paris terror attacks isn't reporting on what "someone said" and had it happened 20 years ago you certainly wouldn't have seen every article ending "in the queue at tesco today Mrs Smith said it was a tragedy. mr white, of Leigh on sea said damn shame, all those people dead.

What does that add to the story? It's ridiculous to suggest that's what journalism has always been about. They're not sources.

It's not just the DM, as pp have said. Why should the Guardian be allowed to post extracts, too? Or any other paper??

Cannot believe people think internet site A is more private than internet site B. Never give too much. Think about what you tell your kids (hopefully) about internet safety and let it sink in.

its a public forum

you can hide behind a username but if someone knows you they could often easily work out who you are

anyone can set up a closed forum and invite a select few to join if you are that bothered

Haven't RTFT but I see they're at it again with the thread about leaving a ten month old alone for five minutes.

Actually, buckinbronco, the view of the person in the street has always been part of journalism. It's called a vox pop. You go out and find a few random people and get their thoughts on a specific issue. I was sent out to do one on the first day of my journalism course.

Yes, there is no doubt there used to be a few quotes from The man on the street in news stories. But every article? For every news story? When they have no opinion to share or value to add? I can understand it regarding politics or an Election say, but Mrs smith from Leytonstone to say that a bomb attack is sad? That was lazy then and is lazy now