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?

So the anxious mumsnet dolphin comes to ringle (expect in real life they probably go to people who charge five times more in London then run out of legal budget after about 3 minutes).

"What can I do?" says the dolphin. My friendly co-existing cleaning/publishing fish are being copied? How can I stop the shark?

Better?

And ringle says:

"Oh dolphin, you've got a problem..."

(is anyone still awake?)

much better!

so ringle says...

"dolphin, you wanted to stay friends with Biddy Pop and so you only asked her for a non-exclusive licence. You're a non-exclusive licensee of the copyright in the copied work. The only people who can sue for copyright infringement as of right are the owner (Biddy/me/other little fish) or an Exclusive Licensee (i.e. a killer porpoise type person).

ringle adds:

"Mumsnet - you and biddy/ringle/etc could club together and sue"

Mumsnet dolphin says: "no can do - I promised anonymity to my member. I can only act together with my mumsnet member and she may not want to - plus she would be at risk of having to pay some of the shark's costs".

"Oh" they both say. They look sad.

"And even then" says ringle. In some circumstances, it's just possible that shark would have at least an arguable defence under one of the fair dealing provisions."

Dolphin decides it may be best just to hope that shark doesn't eat too many of the literary works. A bit like the villagers in George and the Dragon who keep sacrificing maidens to the dragons....

Oh, no! Is this a sad ending? I was hoping the bad sharks would get their come-uppance.

Dolphin, a bit confused, decides that some battles are best left unfought.

Well-known poster clownfish decides she might sue for the copying of her own post and comes to a different copyright solicitor.

"Well, says the solicitor, you certainly have good title to sue, and the good news is that there is a very inexpensive small claims court in London dedicated to just this sort of thing. But I see that mumsnet had the right to permit the shark to eat up your literary work. It would be awful if you got all the way to court - even the lovely IPEC Small Claims track - only to find that Shark and Dolphin had done a secret deal. And even if there is no deal, shark has in-house lawyers who may argue that shark had the right to copy under fair dealing provision.

Clownfish thinks about it. Can Clownfish trust dolphin? Dolphin doesn't talk about this much? Is dolphin hiding something?

Clownfish decides to do nothing. But ever after that, both Clownfish and Dolphin are a little bit sadder, and a little bit more mutually suspicious, than they were before shark entered their lives and ate up the literary works they were nurturing together.

And so goes life.

The End.

PS I have a Jane Austen themed version too. but that's maybe for next year.

Daily mail likely to be in a bit of trouble for reporting that a lorry had hit pedestrians at Oxford Circus and then deleting it minutes later when the met police said no shots, no casualties (thank goodness)

Ooh Rebecca, aren't you the one who knew the answers on the border dispute thread? the letting agent?

It's a public forum which anyone can see.
And not just the Mail - my bbc local radio most mornings is discussing mumsnet threads to thousands of listeners!

Applauds the clownfish ringle

Thank you ringle!

So, to summarise, when you submit a post to be published you automatically get copyright to its content; Mumsnet automatically gets a non exclusive licence to publish it (in Talk but also possibly Round Up or a forthcoming book or whatever); and the gutter press think "fuck it, it's a slow news day and we've got sufficient defence for this" and scoop from it?

I don't do litigation so the last part is totally news to me though sadly not surprising.

This is why I like Quora. You can tick "not for reproduction" on your replies. Quora are welcome to their complete licence, it's the trade-off for them paying the hosting fees. But it means that an individual contributor must be asked and give explicit permission for their answer to be used elsewhere.

It's the polite way to do things

It always amazes me how ignorant the general populace is about privacy.

There are loads of things the media could publish about you without having to seek your permission - any public photos on your FB profile, or basically any photo taken of you where you wouldn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, e.g. On the street, in the park, at the airport. So they can absolutely, definitely publish anything you publish on an anonymous public forum.

If you don't like it or are protective of your privacy, EDUCATE YOURSELF about where and when you are indeed legally entitled to privacy!

That was a nail biter Ringle. And what a twist! I was totally expecting it to be Fair Use with the lead piping in the Billiards Room but actually it was Lack Of Locus Standi* Of a Non-Exclusive Licensee with the rope in the study!

• Locus Standi may not be the correct term - but it sounds dead plausible doesn’t it?

When you’ve had a cup of tea I’m sure we’d all love to hear your views on the interesting question of whether it infringes a poster’s moral rights (let’s call her PaulDacreIsATraitorousCunt) if a news organisation quotes her words without crediting her by name?

I ❤️ You Ringle

When you’ve had a cup of tea I’m sure we’d all love to hear your views on the interesting question of whether it infringes a poster’s moral rights (let’s call her PaulDacreIsATraitorousCunt) if a news organisation quotes her words without crediting her by name?

Ooh yes!

Yes Mrs Hathaway, tis as you say.

The Shark sowed fear, uncertainty and doubt between the dolphin and the clownfish.

yes, lack of locus,

not an insoluble problem in the strict legal sense - you just team up.

but it would be so so difficult in practice: how could mumsnet justify asking us to waive anonymity when anonymity is absolutely core to what mumsnet does?

The sharks get away with it, rightly (occasionally) or wrongly (often)

Babayaggatheboneylegged
It always amazes me how ignorant the general populace is about privacy.

There are loads of things the media could publish about you without having to seek your permission - any public photos on your FB profile, or basically any photo taken of you where you wouldn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, e.g. On the street, in the park, at the airport. So they can absolutely, definitely publish anything you publish on an anonymous public forum.

If you don't like it or are protective of your privacy, EDUCATE YOURSELF about where and when you are indeed legally entitled to privacy!

^ Spot on. I don't do social media, although some would class MN as such. I have never had FB or whatsapp or snapchat or whatever they are called. I am astounded that people put every minute detail of their lives on the internet where it will remain FOREVER.

MNHQ have no problem with the Mail or Sun or Wright Stuff etc publicising threads from here - after all it brings in more posters (or ad clickers as MNHQ would like to think) thus potentially increasing their revenue.

If I were to give you my real name and you googled it, you would find no trace of me online. Could I say the same for you, OP?

I discussed an MN thread at work today. Is that OK?

As for the Paper that Supported the Blackshirts, my concern is not quoting MN threads, it's that 3 million or so copies are sold.

If the copyright of the public photos on your Facebook don’t belong to you, but you are in them and they are nice and then some utter wanker like the Sun comes along and uses them in a hate piece but credits Facebook, is this not a breach of copyright then?

So, reading between the lines there, whilst the daily mail are obviously treading on very dubious moral grounds

What nonsense. This is a public forum. There is nothing morally dubious about it picking up on threads.

MN love it when stories are lifted. It isn't just the Daily Mail. It's entirely legal.

HTH

That's me ringle - but what I know about IP could be written on the back of a postage stamp with a paintbrush! I think there's just one rule: if you mind it being published, don't put it online, or at least anonymise it sufficiently to disguise it.