"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 ...

and yet people are already leaving because of this.

fabulous. trust me to x=-post with Justine

Is fora the plural for more than one forum? cool - learn something new every day

I'd find that a welcome development.

It is all very well media-savvy regulars being careful with their online identities, but what about the new poster who stumbles across MN in extremis and posts about a problem. Then, kindly MNers (trying to help her) tease out her story, revealing more personal details. People in the throes of a personal crisis, who are maybe not used to internet forums, can't be expected to keep issues of anonymity at the front of their minds.

Does MN have a duty of care? Discuss.

I must say I would be AMAZED if it is fair usage

I mean it would be like me offering a weekly roundup of NetMums to the Daily Telegraph

hmmmmmm....

@ Justine "pregnancy book is due out soon" - what's its edd then?

but the thing is, clever people with an understanding of copyrights and search engines etc may well be very good at protecting their professional/personal anonymity.

And I'm delighted for all the people on this thread patting themselves on the back because they have been savvy enough not to post anything personally identifiable. Hooray for you all.

It's not the savvy people I think MNHQ should be protecting. It's the panicked, naive people who come posting for advice because they don't know where else to turn. They are the ones likely to end up burned by columns like this and precisely because MN claim copyright on our posts, they are the only people who are able to do anything about it.

I for one will only be posting on chat in future, at least there there's a 90 day statue of limitations

My understanding of fair use is a) from tv b) from a long time ago and c) was to do with reviewing books, but that disclaimer aside, it was always then seen as quite hard to prove - you had to be using it for the purposes of review and/or news and even then you couldn't use too much.

Just looking at the document you linked to I can't see that the case is at all clear cut - MN copy is 80% of the article, and it's a feature not a news story.

That seems very different from lifting comments about a news story as part of a news report, or as part of a discussion about t'interweb or MN.

What if the website was the BBC? Or Moneysaving expert? Would the feature seem OK? I'm not at all sure.

I wish I was pregnant, but unfortunately not.

Bloody DM. This is ridiculous. Poor OP didn't intend for this to end up on the DM.
Now I have even more reason to hate them.

oo huuuuuuuge cross post there!

DMhatesme, are we the same person?

MP - if you did a review of Netmums, you'd stand a better chance of being fair usage than the DM. She's just edited a thread and stuck her opinion at the end...

IKWYM vonsuden: I spent my student holidays working in permissions and you only took CRUMBS or got a beating round the head

It was VERY strict

admittedly this was before The Edison Lightbulb widespread internet usage

TBH I would be far less bothered by a post being used in a newspaper (tomorrow's chip paper and really who is that interested other than Mnetters?) than ending up in a MN book. There for years and years.

You used to be able to tick to ask that your posts were not used in MN books, but that option has now gone.

duty of care is a professional responsibility for undertaking duties diligently and capably.it cannot apply to a bunch of anonymous posters of whom nothing much is known

Does MN have a duty of care to protect someone fragile ego if they get a AIBU pasting

discuss

i always like to post OPs in chat for that reason, but when it comes to, you know, trying to help people out with my own miserable experiences i tend not to notice the topic.

hmm. i'm heartened that MNHQ are looking into the fair use thing. it does seem a right royal cheek. at the very least mn could nominate a thread and double-check if everyone was okay with it being lifted... or something.

Ok, it's been a 100 years since i did my training but from what i recall.
If you are quoting another source or publication directly then you are restricted to a certain number of words - but I can't remember what the number is.
You must credit the source and whilst certain editing is acceptable it must not change the sense or the tone of the orginal.

summat like that.

SM - I think that would be deemed too remote?? As a causal link??

Who is blowing Tech's equipment? Is that after the drink is spiked or bfore?

What's the betting one of the papers tomorrow has 'MN outrage at DM plagiarism'?

One of the upmarket ones obviously, or they'd have to explain plagiarism...

i imagine extrapolating existing underlying predilection to stress or was it MN induced stress that caused AIBU berky would be tough

so no causal MN link

it's not plagiarism though as they are not attempting to pass it off as their own.