"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 ...

exactly bs, though for ex read mil in my case

yy ''ooh, spooky! I wonder if that Balloonslayer is my Ex. Why don't I go on to Mumsnet and have a look at what else she has written?" THAT is the sort of thing people are worried about.''

what I meant only in one, more succinct par...

I mean, you get veg chucked at you and everything...

daily someone links DM and then protests they found it in a cafe

personalities wont necessarily eradicate or diminish,all is required is a modicum of caution

This is what it says on Mumsnet talk about copyright. "Please note that Mumsnet has copyright in all submissions to Mumsnet Talk, and reserves the right to edit and re-publish these in print form." It doesn't say the posts will be traded for enhanced site traffic to the national press.

I know we've had this conversation before with Justine, but I honestly think Mumsnet would struggle legally to claim such outrageous copyright, without acceptance being explicit rather than assumed.

Why does Mumsnet copyright policy need to be so wide-reaching and exploitative of the post's original author? It makes me really cross. It should be that Mumsnet can use the posts for their own purposes, even in print form, but I'm really not sure that Mumsnet can claim to own the copyright. Why is that necessary Quite a few of my posts are extracts from my diary. A true labour of love. Rights cannot be claimed for any part of a work which is a copy taken from a previous work.

The Daily Mail thing goes beyond fair dealing.

I just think it is very, very sad that this is happening.

BalloonSlayer - I was thinking exactly the same thing but my exh was toooo busy having cyber-sex that he would not look at MN...although come to think of it he may think MN is a chatroom full of willing volunteers!!....

hopeso sm

but I can imagine the thread

'Is AS really made uo?' (hashappened)

and I post no but I can'texplain as I asm identifiable through ds's uniqueness

hang on,no one objected to MN lifting quotes for their MNbooks.in fact i recall a lot of preening and hoping that sone got mentioned

so MN lifted a load of quotes, compiled them
sold for profit no one batted an eye about that

so MN has been copying and reproducing and using post for profit any way

and given it is their site - fair enough

we al know joining that they "own" the site and content

time for a big hoo haa about intellectual property

And what about PerArdua's almost unique ability to be able to stretch an octave between thumb and ring finger and demolish the last pringle without inclining the box? She's a marked woman.

Balloonslayer - didn't Justine say that the journalist had agreed to use innocuous and non identifying threads only. It's only been running for two weeks but this does appear to be the case.

If they do start using threads that are more sensitive then i think people will be entitled to be outraged - think everyone is peaking a bit too soon here.

I haven't read all of the thread but I think it's a dreadful idea - it's one thing to consent to your quips and advice being used in mumsnet guides (which is what I for one thought the copyright disclaimer referred to) and quite another to have your detailed personal problems reprinted in the highest UK circulation newspaper.

As others have said, the situation with the employer is highly identifiable and yet the person concerned probably thought MN was a safe place to ask advice, her boss is extremely unlikely to access the site and also extremely unlikely to stumble across the problem via google.

However chances are he does read the mail (given it's the highest circulation newspaper), if he doesn't, it's almost inevitable that colleagues or friends will.

Suppose he traces other remarks she has made about her work on the site, or uses her internet history to identify whether she has been posting from work? This article might have just lost her an unfair dismissal tribunal.

Agreeing to occasional quotes being used in MN books is QUITE different to shining a glaring media spotlight on someone's agonising personal problem.

I'd like to see a well-researched article about issues raised in The Politics Of Breastfeeding, please, in the DM. I started a thread to talk about it a while back.

Or maybe not... I can just imagine the comments from the Neanderthal readership about how revolting women in general are.

I'm quite sad that MUMSnet have a tie-in with the Daily Misogynist, actually.

Swedes! You've outed me!

Yes SM but people will buy the mumsnet books because they're interested in parenting. People buy the Daily Mail because...........well actually I don't know. But it's just a different readership that would make a difference to me.

well quite hunker. I t has been mentioned...

"By Nancy66 on Thu 13-Aug-09 20:05:21
Balloonslayer - didn't Justine say that the journalist had agreed to use innocuous and non identifying threads only."

But the pregnancy dismissal problem is NOT innocuous and non identifying. It's current and extremely sensitive.

How many women will have received an answerphone message from their boss this week sacking them because they fainted at their booking in apt?

As far as I am aware the only quote used from me in the MN book is about reins and carnivals. The MN books are harmless, jocular experiences and anecdotes. We're 2 weeks into thos and already one experience is not that at vall- I remember having an ACAS thing fordh, bloody horrid

posters are querying should consent be sought for copying comments?should payment be made?

DM is a for profit paper using MN quotes
MN guides was a for profit book using MN quotes

to best of my knowledge no consent or payment was made in either case

so the precedent is set,MN is reproducible elsewhere

what obviously irks is that DM isnt a cosy parenting guide

but principle remains the same - your words and sentiments are reproducible.think about that before you discuss your employer,personal life

You are all right. We all run the risk of people from our real life reading the threads published in the shitmail and knowing who we are. I find this worrying.

To be honest with you MN, it's a breach of copyright to publish something that has already been published by someone else,either in print or via a web page. I can't go around publishing parts of Harry Potter, why should you allow the shitemail to get away with this?

I use this site because it's "by parents for parents" not for the farking Daily Mail. I really resent the things I write being used for such purposes as it has never been my intention to line the pockets of some farking national newspaper run by Bloody Rupert Murdoch (this is the owner yes?). I don't buy this shite paper because it's crap and I'l be damned if I want what I've written on here being published in it.

the young visitor - i disagree.

In the DM version the woman is given the wrong user name, her occupation is not mentioned, her age is not mentioned and neither is her location.

If you read it as printed it implies that the employer didn't know about the fainting - she was sacked because she was pregnant.

Daily Mail is really bad isn't it?

Here's today's headlines:

Dannii Minogue pulls up short in the fashion stakes with an unflattering pair of hotpants: ?The unflattering black and white garment clung to every lump and bump as the X Factor judge took some time out from the show in the south of France. The shorts also failed to hide what looked like a touch of cellulite on the Australian singer?s thighs.?

What baby bump? Tess Daly shows off amazing bikini body... just ten weeks after giving birth: ?Just ten weeks ago she gave birth to her second child. But Tess Daly has wasted no time slipping back into a bikini to show off her admirably toned body? Vernon quickly posted pictures of the event on his Twitter page - no doubt keen to show off his slender wife.?

Age-defying Helena Christensen shows off her slim figure as she bares all in nude photo shoot: ?She may have turned 40 in December, but Helena Christensen shows she?s still got a body to die for as she poses nude for a French magazine.? this shot is really gross btw

Yo-yo 'dieter' Kerry Katona tucks into huge greasy kebab on night out: ?With snacks like this, is it any wonder that Kerry Katona is struggling to control her weight? The yo-yo dieter tucked into an oversized greasy kebab as she enjoyed a night out in Blackpool yesterday. Her face looked a picture of delight as she gazed at the treat piled up in front of her, dripping with garlic sauce. Her husband Mark Croft reportedly told friends recently: 'She's turned into a lard. I'm not going to bed with that.'?

Why DOES Kate Moss look so bad? We reveal how her party lifestyle has finally caught up with her: ?The model, mogul and mother-of-one looked every single one of her 35 years, proving that good genes, mountains of money and plenty of pampering are no defence against the ravages of time and a lifetime of excess? She might still be slim, and the cheekbones still beautiful, but the experts are in no doubt that Kate's lifestyle has taken its toll on her body, from her teeth to her not-so- toned thighs. We asked an expert panel to assess the damage...?

"what obviously irks is that DM isnt a cosy parenting guide"

No, what irks is that the MN guides are generally quite innocuous and information based, and MN has a pretty good record of a duty of care towards their posters.

The Daily Mail have absolutely no interest in keeping MN posters anonymous, or safeguarding our safety or privacy.

And it's all very well to say "ah well the journalist is a regular, she knows her stuff".

IMO she's made a grave error with this column and in any case, there's no guarantee that the Mail will continue to use the same journalist. What's to stop them posting a thread about a domestic violence situation next? Nothing.

I think Nancy, we all need to accept that your view and ours on how identifiable that poster is varies