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?

To the poster who says MN sell the stories to the DM: no they don't. It's just an easy place for journalists to pick up work.

The best way to avoid this is if you're worried about this is to do a NC when you post to 'FuckYouDailyMail' a la one very smart user who has hers as 'DailyMailReadersAreThick'. Then there's nothing they can do.

Little they just blank out the usernames that say things like that, doesn’t make a difference.

The best way to avoid this is if you're worried about this is to do a NC when you post to 'FuckYouDailyMail' a la one very smart user who has hers as 'DailyMailReadersAreThick'. Then there's nothing they can do.

Brilliant. Let's just hope nobody tells the Mail that they don't actually have to print all the usernames.

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

It's not private. you can't invade someones privacy when they have already given up the privacy.
What you write here can be seen by the whole world. What kind of privacy do you imagine there to be?

Actually they do have to use your user name otherwise they're in dodgy ground. If they don't credit you you could potentially kick up a fuss. It's the same as using tweets or instagrams. The host server might own the copyright but you still have to credit them.

and if you're really bothered you can stick it in the middle of the text.

I am an IP solicitor and keep feeling tempted to contribute.

However, if the various threads about boundary disputes are anything to go by, people who know the answers (or at least the right questions) are rarely listened to!

To the posters saying that copyright permits "fair use", I thought that was a US term? I think there is something called "fair dealing" - which permits using copyright works for criticism or review or reporting current events. The thing is though that the DM is just copying and pasting chunks of Mumsnet without any actual reporting or reviewing!

If they don't credit you you could potentially kick up a fuss.

Yeah, let us know how you get on with that from a “paper” that prints lies and never apologised unless really forced.

I am an IP solicitor and keep feeling tempted to contribute.

I promise to read it if you post - but you are right :)

Oh but ringle apparently MN own the copyright in every word on their site. Oh yes.

"I promise to read it if you post - but you are right " :)

I dread to think how many expert explanations on topics I nothing about I've contradicted on my time here :). However, I'm in safe company....

[https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/08/bbc-slammed-over-climate-change-denier-nigel-lawson-interview/]

ok wasonthelist, are you sitting comfortably? I'll keep going if you stay awake....

I'm sitting comfortably

And I'll stay awake

In fairness, copyright is really complicated even compared to other IP (I am an IP formalities officer). And it's the type most people come across most often.

You start at the beginning, where the OP started, which is a very good place to start.

Which is that DM regularly reproduces copy from mumsnet.
And we wonder, "is that legal?"

So we ask what law applies. Let's say just UK (or we'll be here all ).
And we know it is a general part of our law that acts are usually permitted unless they are identified under some law as forbidden.

So we ask: "on what basis might DM's actions be forbidden?"

We look in our legal bag of tricks and out of it we pull a few goodies:
copyright
moral rights
a contract or chain of contracts...
something else like privacy or defamation or breach of the data protection act or other stuff we'd need another lawyer for? [too hard- we'll leave that out]

still awake?

(or we'll be here all year).

Still awake

yeah!

So the correct thing to look at first is copyright and moral rights. And that's because they come into existence by virtue of their own statutes. They exist because Parliament decides they exist.

[we then decide to leave moral rights to the side for the time being or we'd be here till spring. Also it's a bit French].

So we say: "hmmm!" a few times and we wonder what kind of copyright we are talking about. We decide it is copyright in a "literary work."

We then get a bit worried, wondering if we've missed something. We wonder if it matters that posts are anonymous. Fortunately, lots of case law assures us that anonymity doesn't stop copyright from existing. But we'll need to think about that a bit later if anyone is still awake when we get to remedies....

It's not just the Mail who do it.

The Sun online also has about 3 stories a week pulled straight from MN.

Carry on ringle!

we also worry about whether short snippets of posts are big enough to attract copyright. We look at that for quite a while. We wonder: what is the literary work here? The snippet? or the whole post? or the whole thread? We realise that we'll need to keep re-addressing that question. We can't be sure what the answer is. We'll have to settle for having a "position" or stance on it.

[this is why IP is more interesting than other kinds of law by the way]

if you are still reading let me know.

are you still there?

It's not just the Mail who do it.

The Sun online also has about 3 stories a week pulled straight from MN.

It's not just those two either.

And on the usernames thing, I have noticed that while the Mail prints the user names, the Sun does not.