"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 ...

Apologies for the rambling but I'm so bloody furious about this.

If the journalist in question can't even get the original poster's name right, what else will they get wrong in future columns?

I feel awful for the Op who I dare say never considered that her story would end up in a newspaper,particuarly the waste of ink and trees that is the Daily Mail.

And it might not seem like a big deal but I'm furious that they mistakenly printed my user name as the author of that post. I have fertility issues and have been ttc for some time and it's very painful to read that post with my name featured there, when there's nothing more that I want than to be pregnant.

I use this name across the net and many of my friends know my user name. I'm not impressed and am trying to resist the urge to send a very rude e-mail.

I also think that because of the way the piece reads as "authorised", MNHQ ought to seek some kind of assurance about future content and ongoing plans for the column regardless of any copyright concerns (Can you tell what my professional role is yet? )

Hopefully it will be a very interesting column that could direct a lot of traffic in MN's direction, but it seems to me you're placing a lot of trust in the Mail's goodwill as it stands at present.

Sorry thunderduck, that all sucks

Sympathy for you Thunderduck - I'd be livid in your place, and liable to do something regrettable...

Agree with Anna - it is unreasonable to expect MN to remain completely pure and unsullied by commercial interests. But the DM link is a step too far, in my view (not least because of the poor quality of the article).

I think the first column, as it was done without permission or consultation, probably did infringe copyright rules.

Fair useage equates to about 10% of the original. So if I was nicking copy from a 2,000 word article I would only use about 200 words - which sounds about right.

I thought it was a news international, AKA, Murdoch??

I don't really give a shite to be honest, it's a shit newspaper that gets it's kicks out of making women appear inferior and stupid.

I am not happy about this at all... yes this is the internet.. yes it's searchable... yes lazy writers and journos can just lift and lightly edit.

but for me the point is.. this is an MNer reading and picking bits out to make an article and making money from doing so. I signed up to MN and agreed to MN using anything I may say on here.. not for it to be published in the DM as a regular artical. And look as if MN and the DM are partners in this.
Bloody bad show if you ask me.

great for upping the profile of MN.. free advertizing etc.. but it doesn't sit well with me at all.

so with that folks.. you've all been wonderful..good luck

well we need a whole week of nothing but bumsex threads, I'm sure the mail will then come up with a sensational storyline about how breast feeding makes you only want disgusting and depraved bumsex

Thunderduck

for td. hope it works out soon, these things turn on a coin, i know.

I am pretty upset by this.
I ahve been here for soem time now and I belive have had a number of discussions on the board here with the author about our children.

i'm sure other psoters have had deeper discussions with her.

I feel violated.

I cna see today it's current posts and current threads, but i have concerns that when wall this becomes boring then the raiding of old threads and conversations become part of the content- and then why not a few personal memories and details slip into it.

I'm Seriously Not Impressed.

Usually journalists ask for our opinions and we give them and agree to being quatoed by giving them.

This does not follow that etiquette, legal as it may be, it leaves me with a nasty taste.

I feel like pulling all of my posts were that to be possible

Actually, is this an option? Can I pull all my previous posts??

sorry, xposted with Thunderduck - that is very and I'm not surprised you're furious.

I wonder where the poor OP of the original thread is - probably sitting on her bed going alternately hot and cold with horror and wondering if everyone at work now knows her personal problems and whether this is going to affect her unfair dismissal tribunal

oh fuck no, not the bumsex thing, it's so puerile and loathsome.

theyoungvisiter bet you are you an accountant

Thunderduck I can understand and hope that you're OK

As well as jeopardising (sp?) vulnerable posters, I also think we'll lose a lot of the humour on this site if people are afraid to post. Would WWB have posted about her MIL giving her elastic for Christmas if she thought it was likely to end up in the DM?

And I take the point that any journo could lift anything at any time and obviously in the past, they have. Strangely though, none of them thought it would make a weekly column - it took an ex-MNetter to do that. And yes, melodramatic or not, it feels like a betrayal.

Thunderduck, I would not be resisting the urge to write a very strongly worded letter to the editor at this point.

Fair useage equates to about 10% of the original. So if I was nicking copy from a 2,000 word article I would only use about 200 words - which sounds about right.

Nancy it's a lot more complicated than that - it also depends on the balance of original and sourced material and the content and slant of the eventual piece.

The DM piece takes its entire theme from the thread and is almost entirely sourced material.

I'm not a copyright lawyer but it's a lot more complicated than just saying "10% and fair attribution". Otherwise you could just serialise a chapter of a novel and say "oh well, it's only 10%"

sorry that first bit was a quote from Nancy66, I somehow lost the quote marks

Thunderduck

Was going to mention a previous post, but thought not.

Name change if you're known by that name?