Copyright, MN and the DM - 1st class lazy twazzocks

[kimchifox]

Every day they have an entire piece lifted from the forum! Lazy bastards. Why is there no copyright infringement issue here - either the authors of the posts or MN itself? Is there a secret deal between MN and the DM? I know the info is in the public domain once it's posted here but seriously? Fuck off!!

Anyway, rant over, as you were. Unless you are an aforementioned "journo" in which case get over onto AMA and explain yourself.

If I recall correctly I think MN owns the content of the threads on here. Not the posters. I have no idea if MN has a deal with the DM but I can't imagine it's worth their while going after them for it given they'll get an increase in traffic.

But it's a salutary lesson on being conscious of what you post on the internet

Yes - that is true and it's a shame because there's something I'd quite like to post here but never will because of this.

Feeling sorry for lap dance poster today - Maybe I will do another thread to ask if anyone has been "outed" by the DM & what happened!

It is horribly unfair. We all post on here knowing there is a wide range of readers, but assuming that the majority are women. Not saying men shouldn't be on the forum, but they're definitely in the minority. In many ways MN is a safe space for women (and Lord knows, they're being eroded fast enough these days!) If you post about your husband or a male DP it used to be that you could do it fairly secure in the knowledge that they would never see it, and you would get some good (if tough) advice. Now, you have no idea when your post is going to be splashed all over the Daily Mail and other rags, and as such, need to be more circumspect. It's a shame, as it puts off women who really need help, and would have received it on here.

@kimchifox - loving "lazy twazzocks" as a description of DM "journalists". At least we can rest assured that they won't quote this thread 😀

Yes, and not many people are going to know the rules on exactly what can and what cannot be reported by the press. I was pissed off interested enough to go and read this:

www.ipso.co.uk/media/1510/social-media-public.pdf

As PP said though even with an infringement it's a long and costly process to take them on regarding this or copyright.

I should have added "morally bankrupt". I wonder if these people even give a thought to the fact they are potentially damaging someone even if it's within "the rules" or if they just sit there reading MN and rub their hands together gleefully whilst muttering "mwah ha ha ha ha, that's my "work" done for the day, copy and paste" when they come across a "juicy" thread.

Is there one person tasked with lifting things from MN or is there a little team of them all fighting and stabbing each other in the back to get the best stories first? So many questions.

As long as they credit the source then it's fine. Anything published can be quoted elsewhere provided that it's clear that it's being quoted and who the author is. I try to avoid the Daily Mail obviously but when I've occasionally clicked a link from here it's always made it very clear that they're reporting on a Mumsnet discussion and they always namecheck the author.

If you review a book for instance it's perfectly acceptable to quote passages and then provide your commentary. That's all that is happening with the Daily Mail, just that there's rarely any merit in doing so.

I am surprised how many people are surprised that whole lot of newspapers lift stuff of public forums, social media and other sites...
Not only because it is discussed every week, but also, using common sense, of course it can happen.
They quote posters with the names available there is no "infringement" here.

If you wnat protection, you can set up private forum. This is like people being surprised their public settings Facebook is visible to others🤷🏻

Also, you all might want to start reading other newspapers because it is NOT just DM lifting off of here...

Exactly this! I just commented on another OP’s thread that she is easily identifiable due to her present and past posts.

It is not just the DM but the Sun and the Mirror too. Lots of lazy journalism on the cheap as they have to fill lots of online articles as well. I look at some threads and think that is a lazy journalist looking for a story / quotes.

It's not just the DM lifting stuff from here and the sites that lift stuff use a variety of sources (like Reddit)

Absolutely loads of journos do this, from many sources.

Have you never seen an article (mainly in local news) about someone moaning about something trivial and then the comments underneath say things like "how pathetic that they run to the press over this!" But they didn't run to the press. The "stories" are taken from their own social media and usually posted without permission.

The difference is that most people who write posts here do it because it's anonymous - the author of a book has written it for public consumption usually using their real identity. For money, so publicity helps.

Unfortunately people writing their personal stories here are often doing so for opinions or advice and because, as a PP said, it feels like a safe place. It must be a horrible shock to see it published in a national newspaper!

It just seems so unnecessary. Maybe it directs traffic to MN but it's the frequency that has irked me I think. I take your point about not reading it at all but I am a news junkie and read lots of sources

But why get so worked up over it

It's very naive to post on here thinking this risk doesn't exist.

As others have explained there is no copyright infringement

Get a grip

Lots of sources except the sun / mirror etc 😂 DM is the only tabloid I look at.

I am surprised how many people are surprised that whole lot of newspapers lift stuff of public forums, social media and other sites...

Me too, MN themselves post threads on their own FB and positively encourage people to share them too. Threads appearing in the wider media directs traffic to the site and therefore revenue.

It is not true that if you credit sources you don't breach copyright (under English law). However mumsnet's terms last time I read them did give rights to MN, not the poster. What the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 does prevent where there is no consent from MN is taking a "substantial part" of a copyright work.

Loose Women/This Morning have also discussed threads from MN.

I tend to be suspicious of any thread that ends with 'thoughts please' or 'what do you think' - having said that, one of my responses on a thread (not with any of those endings!) was not only screenshotted last week in the DM, they quoted the whole thing in their copy as well. Write your own copy journos, you get paid for it.

It's one thing to post knowing that people will be reading it, I don't do it to provide copy for journalists to use. They don't help me out in my job, and I didn't volunteer to do theirs.

I'm in the middle of a highly stressful, life changing event which will drag on for months. Previously I would posted on MN about it and I know I would have got some excellent support and wise advice. I can't now, there is too much risk of being outed. This is a shame as MN used to be fantastic for women to discuss and support each other.

This is the thing - there's literally no content or comment from the journalist - it's just lifting and publishing the thread "MN user said X, and these were the replies".

It's no different to the likes of Take A Break magazine and they use words like "mum" and things like "I popped round for a cuppa" and then somewhere in the tale they mention they live in somewhere like Romania and all people involved are Romanian. They obviously get the stories from somewhere and then word them to cater for a British audience.

The idea that any space on the Internet is a safe space is misguided. Especially when the site is free we are all providing content.

It's cheeky what they're doing, but it shouldn't be surprising. MN itself has share buttons.