to think that unless its agreed by the OP their post should not hit the newspapers

[heckythump01]

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwi2y7zMqZzQAhXhDMAKHSqDCu0QqQIIMTAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Ffemail%2Farticle-3902718%2FShe-s-focused-retirement-menopause-Husband-sparks-outrage-asking-leave-older-wife-s-ageing-him.html&usg=AFQjCNGOKi9R92jLsEaWhDX0o-JdkiST3Q&bvm=bv.138169073,d.d24

think this is a bit harsh, i bet his wife will be well aware on his feelings now..............! Feel for his step daughter aswell.

There are several threads about this already.

It's a public website. It increases revenue for MN and DM.

You do know that anyone can see posts, don't you? It's lazy journalism but this place gives the DM a lot of publicity anyway, they are just reciprocating to HQ.

And they don't have an asterisk flunkie (as you so charmingly put it), they just blur any swear word.

I used to go on a work specialised forum that DID take legal advice and was ready to go to court over information taken from posts on their forum.
Then they were given crap advice. It is completely unenforceable because it falls under fair use.

We all had a sentence that we had to put under our posts (it was fixed so it always came up), it said something like "I do not give permission for this post to be used by anyone else".
Meaningless bollocks.

If I wanted to take a screen-shot of your post and put it on my blog to talk about as part of something that I was posting, I would be able to do that and there is not a thing you would be able to do about it.

When will people understand that MN is the same public internet as the DM site is? Even the Relationships section! If you don't want it published publically on the internet then don't post it anywhere.

copying stuff off an internet chat site (that could be true or could be made up/ exaggerated, who knows?) counts as 'news'? Oh ffs.

It frightens me that adults have no grasp of what it means to post on a public forum

It does me too.

.

Just because you could do it, doesn't mean you should.
What is the legal position?

There is no legal position.

Or, you know like you can photocopy bits of books, but not all of them? That's the legal position.

Funny isn't it, when OP's get into the press because they invent tell scurrilous and totes hilaires tales of a sexual nature we all rejoice for years.

And quite to the comment above. How can adults (many of whom we presume are bringing up children and advising them on safe internet use "don't give out your details, people might not be who they say, be careful" spew out every last thing onto MN and then expect HQ to DO SOMETHING when it goes tits up.

^^ THIS! It's like those FB posts when people put a wanky disclaimer to stop FB having copyright - it's not only ineffective, it makes you look gullible as fuck

So many threads have been started about this. Once stuff is posted on the internet it's out there. In the public domain for all to see. The end.

Or, you know like you can photocopy bits of books, but not all of them? That's the legal position.

What about if you copied most of the book in large chunks to use for commercial gain? Some of the DM "articles" seem to consist mostly of copied material.

If everything on the internet is "in the public domain" and can be used for any purpose by anyone, then why are there any copyright notices on any website?

I'm astounded that threads on a chat forum are regarded as newsworthy. Pathetic, lazy daily fail wankers.

The sensible thing to do is to name change regularly and not post enough information under any one name for anyone to be able to identify you.

If you are going to post something personally sensitive use a new name and change enough key details ao that individuals mentioned won't immediately identify themselves.

If exposure would be unsafe/embarrassing consider whether to post at all.

Yes it is a moral issue not a legal one but cleaning up after an earthquake with a dustpan and brush would be easier than expecting the dm to have morals.

If people are clicking on MN threads because they have appeared elsewhere on the internet then it's all good business for MN and it's advertisers.

Why would MN want to stop more people clicking on their site?

"What's disingenuous about reading the DM site as well as this one? It may not be appealing to many, but it's not forbidden.: well, given that so many mumsnetters claim to hate the DM and everything it stands for, it's interesting that those same MN'ers seem to know exactly what's written in it, So obviously they're reading it but just don't want to admit that they're DM readers. And if you're willingly reading the DM, and everything which is written in it, then you're contributing to their revenue, so let's not pretend that concern for the wellbeing of people here is genuine, because it most clearly isn't.

WannaBe, maybe they are reading the DM to scan for threads which MNHQ might need to pull, in a kind of 'monitoring' role?

Is it really so unusual to read a variety of news sources, to see the various arguments? I'd think that showed an open mind, instead of sticking only to what is "safe" and where you already agree with everyone else. Presumably everyone visits websites which have opinions that differ from their own, otherwise how do they know the details of what they're disagreeing with?

Not every one hates the DM nowadays?

Times certainly are a'changin.

If someone is scanning papers for mention of Mumsnet threads in a 'monitoring' way then I would think them overinvested and perhaps gently suggest an internet detox would be a good idea.

'Is it really so unusual to read a variety of news sources, to see the various arguments? I'd think that showed an open mind, instead of sticking only to what is "safe" and where you already agree with everyone else'

I do read a variety of news sources but I don't read the depths of the Mail online and the sidebar of shame because that's not 'news' in my opinion. Reading about threads from MN is not exactly scouring news sources for different opinions.

Yes I agree OP YANBU.

"WannaBe, maybe they are reading the DM to scan for threads which MNHQ might need to pull, in a kind of 'monitoring' role?" then they need to get a life.

But I think we all know that that is not likely.

And yes, I read a variety of news sources. The DM is not one of them because it's not a news source - it's a trashy tabloid.

Is it really so unusual to read a variety of news sources, to see the various arguments? I'd think that showed an open mind, instead of sticking only to what is "safe" and where you already agree with everyone else

I read a wide range of new sites. I don't really feel the need to read churnalist drivel about 15 year old girls 'flaunting' their bodies and pubescent girls looking 'all grown up'.
The DM and Mail Online are seedy places.

I'm a journalist. I'm reading this thread. I am not, as it happens, about to quote from it but how it's out in the public domain - it's an open forum.

maybe they are reading the DM to scan for threads which MNHQ might need to pull, in a kind of 'monitoring' role?
So shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted then!

What about if you copied most of the book in large chunks to use for commercial gain? Some of the DM "articles" seem to consist mostly of copied material.
The article can consist largely of copied material, as long as they are using it to discuss or review it. Most of the DM articles don't actually use large portions of the threads, they just copy key posts from very long threads.

If everything on the internet is "in the public domain" and can be used for any purpose by anyone, then why are there any copyright notices on any website?
No it's not a free for all. Copyright is still very important. "Fair Use" is a term within Copyright that allows portions of copyrighted material to be used in some circumstances. That includes this kind of DM article where the content is discussed. They couldn't just copy an entire page from MN and post it on its own.

YouTube has had to deal with a lot of similar issues where people post their own (copyrighted) material, then someone else posts a video that reacts to it. The copier is allowed to show large portions of the original video as part of their video, as long as they are discussing the original. They cannot just post their own copy of someone else's video - that would get removed as a copyright breach.