"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

Yes, but doesn't that give weight to the argument that the domain of Mumsnet is responsible for the content/quality and therefore is the owner of the intellectual property?

Can't be responsible for the content if there's no ownership, right?

These terms and conditions were constructed in response to the last time this conversation arose - with the publication of the Toddlers book - they were meant to be both less draconian and more vetted that our existing ones, which were copied from someone else's site when we started up years ago. I'm afraid it wasn't me who talked to the lawyers about them, and those who did are both on hols.

I agree that paragraph about data looks dubious - I can only think it's some kind of protection for MN if someone published personal details on MN and someone else tries to use them maliciously - to protect us from being liable for their publication. But I've emailed the lawyers for clarification.

Of course we have no intention of publishing anyone's personal details/ passing them on etc as we explicitly say when folks join. We do take your privacy very seriously, and always have.

But I'll back soonest with further clarification.

yes, the libel thing is about who is respnonsible for what is said on the site- posters or MN

And the copyright is about who owns what is said and what we have agreed that MN can do with it, and what MN have asked us to do with it (ie not pot it elsewhre)

So not very different really IMO

< passes round Jaffa cakes- sorry- economy drive here>>

Ok so here's the answer from the lawyer about the geographical location thing:

"I think the provision is only "necessary" if you want the right to identify/quote your members in future Mumsnet publications. When we spoke, you mentioned that you do not currently contemplate doing so, but that you might one day want to link user contributions with basic biographical details in your books (e.g., if a comment is only relevant to urban parents, you might want note that the commenter
herself lives in London). If you don't feel strongly about reserving these rights, you're free to delete the paragraph entirely."

We don't feel strongly about these rights, so we'll delete. Thanks for raising it.

Pleased to hear that Justine. I am however curious about something, earlier today you wrote

By JustineMumsnet on Fri 14-Aug-09 00:33:49 (from MNHQ)
Oops we haven't sanctioned anything - as I've said had we been asked we would have put it to the MN jury, who would have undoubtedly have said no!
I seriously doubt we have any right to stop publication of short extracts from MN but I will check for sure

However to quote MN's terms of use.

"Mumsnet Terms of Use
Copyright: This Web site and its contents are copyright Mumsnet. All rights reserved. Reproduction of all or any substantial part of the contents in any form is prohibited. No part of the site may be distributed or copied for any commercial purpose without express approval"

To me that seems pretty clear cut that the Daily Mail needed permission from you to write these articles!

As someone who sat exams in these things at journalism college, would like to defend Justine and say that copyright law and defamation (libel/slander) law are very different. Defamation is dead easy. Copyright is a total bitch.

It comes down to whether you believe the DM had fair use of the material ComeOVeneer. I did, having consulted at length with... my dh - it seems that might not be the case, though.

Generally lifting quotes from Mumsnet is legal under these laws. But I guess this is more than just lifting quotes...

I've come back and read the rest of this today. Justine, you do sound very confused about whether or not the DM have your consent to publish posts which originated on MN.

You say it came as a surprise to you, and then that you spoke to LH and have a sort of verbal agreement to go ahead but not with anything contentious. Is Mumsnet getting any benefit from this other than an influx of Mail readers?

Thin end of a very nasty wedge

I never get quoted

ohh greeny, how are you?

I've been thinking about you and have been racing around and all sorts and I was hooping you feel better- tho won't need to talk herr if you don't want to

Considering well over half of that article is just quotes I would say they are over stepping "fair use".

It did come as a surprise to me. This thread is when I first heard about it, not being a Mail reader myself.

So I wrote to the journo and asked if they were planning a regular thing. My consent was never sought - if it had been I'd have consulted with MN.

When yesterday's thread started, LH wrote to me saying she do her best to protect people's personal identities.

There is no benefit to MN other than publicity for the site.

It now seems that the DM might be infringing our copyright - tbh I imagine from their perspective they would think they are doing MN a favour by publicising the site and they'd be quite surprised were we to object to the column. In truth most websites and their PRs would be wetting themselves over having that kind of coverage in the Mail - but I've not tried to contact anyone there - am waiting to finalise legal opinion and meanwhile collect your opinions as to our next move!

I'm not too bad oops, thanks for asking! I have a nasty UTI, low fever and swollen throat this week [never a dull moment ] but I am toughing it out, I am feeling better "in meself" and it's lovely have ing the boys home. Hope all is well chez oops too!

Justine, would it be possible to liaise with the lovely Ms Hardy (and she is lovely) to consult posters before quoting them? Then people could refuse if they wanted to and she could find an alternative quote

just a thought, has probably been suggested anyway

for the record I think the DM = pond scum, but at least if posters were given the choice it might take some of the sting out of MN being associated with them?

We could certainly try to do that Greeny - if that's what folks wanted, I could imagine quite a lot of to and fro...

Are you happy for DM to use this? No. Repeat for hundreds of emails...

Likewise if it is to be a regular feature that too sounds like going beyond fair use. I'm not a lawyer but would think that they would be hard pushed not to require your permission if it appears every week!

The link Justine provides refers to "the terms of fair dealing". To cut and paste from fact sheet P-01 on that site:

"Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

• Private and research study purposes.
• Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
• Criticism and news reporting.
• Incidental inclusion..."

It seems to me the two relevant ones are criticism and news reporting, and incidental inclusion.

This isn't strictly news reporting - certainly as I would see it. It's a feature. There's a world of difference between quoting someone who said on Mumsnet they were off to do something newsworthy - before doing it - or quoting bits of Twitter from a disaster zone - and lifting a whole thread and making an article out of it. The other key thing is the "incidental inclusion". This isn't incidental, it's the article.

TBH, the Mail may come over all "we thought you'd kill for this sort of publicity" - but that's what they would say being in this position. Someone somewhere must have wondered about overstepping on copyright.

Oh god, I see what you mean

Would most posters object on principle and just say "no" then, or would people read the wuote in question and decide whether it was OK or not? Much as I loathe the DM I would do the latter, personally - freedom of speech etc, and MN IS news imo

I know someone who is doing post-doctoral research on the way web communities work and how they interface with othe forms of communication - lots of studying of MN and other websites - is that "lazy research"? I don't think so

and I suspect that this is going to come up more and more in the near future - it won't always be the DM

maybe we should have a thread asking posters what the solution to this is, in a wider sense than just "we hate the DM" and asking them how they would like to be consulted?

[unrealistic]

[clutches at straws]