"on mumsnet this week" in the Mail. Is this a new thing

[jujumaman]

Came across this this morning when I should have been working

Is this a new weekly rip-off by the Mail? Or has it been going on for months and I'm behind the times as usual

I'm not quite as virulently anti the Mail as mnetters, find it silly rather than the end of civilisation as we know it. But still ...

Although I think you're being a bit harsh Maggie, I do also sometimes feel (both here and in the Mouldies fall out) where MN members would like to be defended a bit more heartily by HQ, who seem to have different priorities. And I know we're not paying their salaries, but still.

but that doesnt' make sense - as if they have access to Mumsnets - via Google - then they have access to the Daily Mail - via google.....

hhhhhhmmmm. i'm astonished by the appalling lack of manners, apart from anything else, imagine not contacting mnhq...

can see why mnhq are rubbing their hands, but Leah Hardy will no doubt get her jotters when they realise that a student can do it for free, and then where are you? is she freelancing or staff?

almost makes you yearn for a private message board of like-minded people, doesn't it..?

What about the missquotes? Is she going tto make as much effort getting the posters names right as she is leaving out identifiable information because it doesn't look like it.

If the whole paper was filled from beginning to end with internet rip offs then I could understand the 'lazy' accusations. But the odd, small column once a week hardly merits it.

Doesn't everyone take the occasional short cut as part of their job?

The scenarios under which you imagine that you're all going to be traced and identified are quite mad.

"I do also sometimes feel (both here and in the Mouldies fall out) where MN members would like to be defended a bit more heartily by HQ, who seem to have different priorities."

But what would you have us do vonsudenfedhatespauldacre?

(Sorry genuinely confused)

and why can't the mail cull from its own messageboards? (have you read them? very spittle-flecked).

Aitch it does, my dear, it does.

Am getting sad now that I won't be able to come on here and have fun anymore.

Washing machine - add vinegar and run a hot wash btw.

i'm sure they'd admit you, whomoved.

Okay I have a solution (didn't take me long). I'm going to post everything I post here on another site so I assign joint copyright. Let's see you all sort that little one out.

I'm out of here.

MNHQ (and certain MN members) seem to be on a different plant to the me with regards to the differences between having discussions quoted in the national press and being posted on a forum which may, or may not (if you're looking for something about being "sacked for being pregnant") turn up in a google search.

But doesn't MNHQ own the copyright and can only be reproduced with permission if for commercial purposes?

I'm with FAQ.

Going to ask the same thing as Tamarto - Justine what did the journalist say about getting the basic fact of who the OP was wrong?

Aitch - don't know who you refer to but you know how to contact me

I'll try and answer this quickly as there is tea to cook. It's not so much in the response itself as the tone. It sometimes feels to me that you are saying, it's OK, everything's fine, when it's not.

For example, with this, it took a while for you to say that, given the choice, you would have run the DM past us on account of its misogyny - and I know you were away. I suppose what I mean is that I sometimes come away feeling that the emotions being expressed over issues like this (which are, after all, only expressions of people's fantastic loyalty to the MN brand) aren't always acknowledged, just the facts dealt with. And this - from the other side- can sometimes feel frustrating.

As for Mouldies (opens can of worms), there was a sense that MN wanted to a) defend the oldies b) make it all go away, and so, again, the emotional resonance of it for many people was being denied.

We can't get away from the Fair Use thing afaik, so people just need to be sensible rather than flounce. Justine, just make sure you don't put any tweets out about people shuufling over to make room for new Daily Mail readers and you should be alright, ok?

Nancy are you Leah Hardy?

The thing is i post on Mumsnet and other internet forums/fora? Not the national press, if i wanted my life in the papers i would make the effort to get it in the papers, i don't like the fact that someone elses is decided whether i'm in the paper or not.

Yes i am aware i can name change etc but why should i have to?

lol, i don't think the oldies would agree that they were defended. but yes, a LOT of people wanted Moldiegate to go away because it became Very Boring. mind you, i do think that MNHQ won a watch by not being asked for permission. they'd have run it by MN, the answer would have been no thanks and they'd have missed out on Mahoosive Publicity. ho hum.

gotcha Who. although i truly cannot help you there at all...

Ju - no, but I do know her.

I write for the Mail - have admitted this before - I think people are being a bit OTT in their fears about being traced and tracked down.

But, as I said on page one, I do think it was out of line that the DM didn't clear it with MN before publication.

I think some posters are being a little hars and precious in not realising that MN is a business that needs to generate traffic and revenue.

is Bad Mothers Club still a going concern?
i wonder if they also get cut and pasted by the press.

off for a google.

Clairdeloon - fair use - we can't do anything about selective quoting of MN

Vonsudenfedhatespauldacre tbh I find the knee-jerk anti-journalism that can prevail on MN a bit tricky to deal with. My dh is a journalist, I was a journo of sorts (if you can count footie and cricket) and lots of v good mnetters are journos - I'm not quite sure why folks are so virulently agin but it's an interesting one to explore. So while we sympathise with the very serious privacy issues, the whole lazy journo stuff can seem a bit mean, to me. But I'm very happy to debate it!

Re Mouldies (similar misgivings about can of worms) it was an incredibly difficult situation for us because the oldies as you put it were MN for many years - we felt/feel a certain loyalty to them because they'd contibuted so much, and we liked many as people too. Just as we'd feel a loyalty to many of the folk on this thread now - even if they decided MN was rotten to the core and buggered off to Bounty - we'd still feel obliged to stick up for folks who we knew were good folk, or at least not slag em off, even if it might have be the expedient thing to do.

And my final question - is the clear use thing really so clear-cut?

• it's not news reporting, it's features
• she's not giving the names of the people who wrote it
• and it's such a huge chunk of the article that I am not sure that this applies - certainly wouldn't if it was a book...

I know this is a grey area, but it is important. Because if you have to put a disclaimer at the top of every MN page "anything you write may be reprinted in the DM" then MN would wither on the vine