to not understand how it is legal for the Daily Mail to pull stories from Mumsnet?

[CopperHandle]

Surely its breaching some kind of privacy law? I couldn't copy someone's post and put it on a blog and reversing the situation, if I were to promote my own blog/writing on here it would be taken down so how is it possible for the Fail to repeatedly get away with taking information off here and using it?
And blatantly linking to the site too! Using people's usernames etc etc.

I know that they are scumbags anyway, but I can't understand how they get away with it?

People have put the information in the public domain so anyone can use it.

Because MNHQ own the copyright to everything you post and they allow it. It's all good publicity, increases traffic and therefore advertising revenue.

Anything you put on here can be found via google, so I don’t see the difference. It’s not private on here you know, it’s the WORLD WIDE WEB and anyone can see it, not just DM readers!

Because nothing on the internet is private. So long as the Fail cite the source (ie. website and username) they can copy what they want.

In the same way nothing you put on Facebook etc is private either. People need to stop being so ridiculously naive as to think that Mumsnet is a private diary!

Gosh, really?
So, reading between the lines there, whilst the daily mail are obviously treading on very dubious moral grounds - Mumsnet are allowing them to, so they're also in the morally questionable camp?

It's a freely accessible anonymous online forum - whose "privacy" are they invading?

deepestdarkestperu

Where did I say that I thought it was a private diary?

My point is more that the Daily Mail are publishing people's discussions without explicit permission for personal/business gain - which is not right.

Obviously if something was a complete secret, people shouldn't post on a public forum. That doesn't mean its okay to post what they're writing in a newspaper, for entertainment.

I think it's in MN's interest to allow it, so they do.

It's lazy journalism that sums up the whole DM ethos. They're clearly employing slack, work shy asshats who patrol these threads with their copy and paste button poised because it's an easier route than engaging their brains.

CAAKE You can't see how publishing something in a news article written by someone on a forum for advise is invading their privacy?

*advice

Not again

MN isn't a private social club. Once your words are published here they are in the public domain.

Also, it is in MNs interest to increase traffic to the site by threads going viral (as traffic affects their ad revenue).

Mumsnet sell our stories to the Fail, @CopperHandle

Don’t delude yourself, they’re all about the money down at HQ.

MN are a business and you are being a tad naive . We sign up for this when we join

Mumsnet owns all content on her as soon as you post it. It's no longer yours. I'm sure it's in the terms and conditions somewhere that you must have agreed to when you registered. I'm a health researcher and we use data from Mumsnet all the time for research purposes (like we can quote what you type on here in our publications). All we need is to get approval from Mumsnet for it from a research ethics standpoint. Journalism doesn't have the same research ethics standards (we do in medical and health research because of horrid ethical abuses in the past). Technically, anything you post online unless it's copywritten is free game. I have no idea if Mumsnet copyrights any of this stuff (if they do, journalists may need to ask their permission), but generally if you put something out there in the public domain, it's free game for anyone to quote.

Privacy law? you do know that MN is public don't you? And that if you're recognisable in the Daily Mail then you're recognisable on MN? And that MN give their permission for threads to be lifted anyway but even if they didn't, threads are regularly posted on their fb pages/twitter etc as well as just on mn?

MN have a thing about fair usage but that's neither here nor there. But given the fact that the Daily Mail online is one of the highest-reaching websites, it drives traffic to MN therefore adding to ad revenue. MN is a business after all.

If a product is free, you are the product.

It's the reason why I hold fire on commenting on stories where it appears that the person in the story has ran off to the press about something totally pathetic when in fact it was taken from this site or from someone ranting on facebook.

I have seen articles that didn't cite this website as a source and only knew it had been because I'd read the thread earlier.

The Mirror do it too but they have always cited the source.

the Daily Mail are publishing people's discussions without explicit permission

I think just by posting on MN you have given consent.

There are a lot of posters who hate the Daily Mail, and know MNHQ do not prevent copying, but yet everyone still flocks here, posting away.....

Anything posted in a public forum is fair game, I don't see why you are so shocked?
While it's true that it is extremely lazy journalism, it works - do you read the DM? How did you come to write this post?

Or just change your name to something like this.

Eh? If you don't want something that's posted here not to end up anywhere, then don't post.

Copyright laws have not been broken - MNHQ like stuff from here to appear n newspaper websites. They want it to happen.

You can post things from here on your blog as long as you don't pretend you wrote it, and as long as you credit the original source. The rule of thumb for this is 10 per cent of the actual words, so you could not just lift an entire post and drop it into your blog....but you could use 10 per cent of the words and then link to MN for the rest.

Not just the Mail - the Sun wrote up one the other week.

I'll go and look, but do the Ts & Cs explicitly say threads can be used by journalists? While anyone can join (and therefore read) MN, it is a different use.

It's a good reminder to be careful what we post though...