"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

I think abetadad's rules are great; however the problem I have here is that I just don't like being in papers / mags etc (have had a few things published years ago and ahted thename on show aspect of it)

The solution for me is simple; stick to what I know- occasional forays into SN, and mainly camping / postnatal / in the news.

Tis a shame but it's that or go- and I realise thats because of my hang ups not anyone elses fault

And yes of course I am a bloody namechanger LOL, and you haven't heard of me- were i using my usual name you would have done. But it's not a safe enough name.

I think for me that represents the best solution.

hid it, bof. hate the bumsex fixation, it's infantile and crass. but happy birthday etc.

'he'll work for whoever pays his bills.'

So would I. Principles, unfortunately, don't pay mine.

I'm not a fan of the DM, but again, as daftpunk pointed out, it's not Mein Kampf.

Don't forget to give me a spare key if you all shimmy off to a private lounge.

all other fora have the copyright thing the other way round... ie posts owned by posters... would have prevented the SWMNBN debacle- she would have had to sue the individual concerned.

Ah but you see that's why it's beneficial to post on MN - you can have a robust debate about other parenting techniques and be fairly confident that MNHQ will find you a charming lawyer to prise you out of the shitter should the gruffalo try to chase you out of the forest

You know, I would imagine

DAAAAAAAAAAVE!

AFAICS MNHQ just has to work out what the position is regarding Fair Usage and then decide if they are happy to have the DM have editorial content over that sort of thing or not, and if not, then say: oi, stop that

Anyway, have we considered the true horror?

Mumsnet occupying the same pages as Liz Farking Jones.

It just seems so wrong...

but when do we get leah's head on a stick?

of course i don't mean that really, but it makes me feel sad. not asking is sneaky.

MP, your version of the Gruffalo sounds a lot more interesting than mine. No-one falls in the shitter in our version of the book.

Morningpaper - I think you're right. A stroppy letter from a lawyer saying 'you're out of order stop it or we'll consider our options' would prob knock it on the head - for 300 words a week or whatever it is, it's not worth the hassle.

This Fair Usage thing is fascinating; I really didn't know about it. When I did a bit of copy writing in a previous not-long-ago job, I was scrupulous about requesting permission for every fact I used that I'd found in other sources, even though the publications were for not for profit organisations. I guess I could have saved myself sooo much time and not bothered.

it really does depend on who you are writing for though.

A newspaper makes a small fair usage fuckup, it's a one off, it's yesterday's fish and chip paper, they just print a teeny apology in small writing on page 54. Not really any harm done except perhaps a slap on the wrist from the PCC, and probably not even that.

A book publisher makes a similar fuckup, it's a complete pulping of that edition, swift reprint, withdrawal of all copies out to booksellers, massive, massive costs.

It all depends on the lifespan of the publication you are writing for and the costs involved in withdrawing the offending material.

DailyMailCan- ditto when I used to write editorials for a charity (many moons ago)- every quote had to be checked and passed.

Still, decency is over and above what is basically necessary. And all that.

By publications, I was working on leaflets and posters for public sector - that kind of thing. Just repeating statistics (citing sources, obviously) to help put the message across. Thing is though, it would feel wrong to copy facts that someone else has put their energy into identifying, without asking permission.

I'm with expat too.

I can't understand why MN would want this column not to run. Their business model relies on lots of hits. More the better. Why would they want to filter out DM readers? There must be enough of them. Their hit counts just as much as any other to an advertiser. I have a couple of business ideas and would love the DM to write about them.

Doesn't mean I read the DM - but an article is free publicity.

You used to be able to tick to say you didn't want your posts to go into the MN books - but that option disappeared. Personally I'd be more concerned about that than ending up in the DM. Having said that when I emailed HQ and requested that my posts did not end up in a book they were fine about that (have flounced and changed names several times since then so I doubt that still stands).

Well, I can see why MNHQ would want the column to run, but without any control over editorial it's suddenly trusting the Daily Mail to be ethical and sensitive, or risk MNers being outed through THIS WEEK threads (which are very much ongoing crises)

The problem for me is Fair Usage - what if the columnist wrote a This Week on Mumsnet every week for a couple of years and then banged out a book - would that be okay? I think not. And I think this column is probably unlawful for the same reason, so should be authorised via MN first (which is fine, LH could run it through them each week if they/she/we could be arsed to do so)

I do feel sorry for LH tbh!

She is probably leafing through a pile of leaflets on Teacher Training Courses and eating a box of Thornton's Continental Mix

"without any control over editorial it's suddenly trusting the Daily Mail to be ethical and sensitive"

End of argument right there, morningpaper. Thank you

Seriously, would you be comfortable with this? Considering the rag's agenda?

would people be happy with my proposed plan?

so do i mp. and i apologise for my earlier post leah.

i am cross because have recently been stitched up by tv production company at work and am carrying over to this, not fair.

Stealth: TBH I expect it will go:

Justine: Hello Daily Mail bod, I'm terribly sorry but I've spoken to my lawyer and I understand that the column as is is rather possibly infringing on Fair Usage, what ho?

Editor: Oh do fuck off

well that would do too
So you weren't keen on being nominated for a load of extra weekly work then?

I do feel a very teeny tiny bit sorry for Ms Hardy now, but she knows what MN is like and must have foreseen this reaction. She, sadly, only has herself to blame... It's a pity that a lot of MNers from the old days seem to have liked her, and now many will have a very different opinion.