Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

40 replies

StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail · 14/08/2009 11:13

Thread no 2

Go to post
MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 12:22

Balloonslayer the problem is that this is very much a grey area - most websites will carry a copyright notice like ours - but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's enforceable - much like the libel laws and how the law views internet publishers it's a moving target and none of it has been thoroughly tested.

As said we're looking into what the very latest thoughts are on this and let you know. We'll also update our copyright notice today as we've intended to do for sometime - I've found the stuff that was on someone's to do list - after the last discussion about this.

RE not objecting to the DM lifting stuff as said that's because it is our understanding that they are within their rights to do so as this is a public forum but again, we will ask the inestimable Mark Stephens what he thinks and get back to you.

I'm sorry if you think we're being slack. All I can say in our defence is that we are not over-endowed with resources at MNHQ - part of the downside of not being overly commercial (which I think is what most Mumsnetters expect of us) is that we aren't raking huge amts of dosh to pay for lawyers, administrators, etc.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 12:23

LilyOfTheMountain now you're being paranoid - it's me and Cath and BigTech around today... would that we had the time to mess with thread titles in active conversation!

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 12:28

ps we're more than happy to make this a dod - why not it's a fundamental discussion that we need to have - about privacy and copyright and the internet and all that malarkey. Don't think we ever shied away from discussing stuff like this have we? (except perhaps Moldies - did just wish that would go away in the end)

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 12:31

Oh cripes MP the round up - I'll go have a look now!

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 12:34

I'm absolutely sure Leah H will have read these threads and I've dropped her a line to suggest she comes on but she's most likely terrified - I know I would be...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 15:16

Ok well very quick, blackberried legal opinion appears to be that this may, indeed, constitute an infringement of copyright... (remind me never to trust my husband...)

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 15:26

Indeed yes it would certainly give us a negotiating stick as you say TYV - would folks be happy with that solution - let us know...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 15:29

I've told you before MP - he's all yours - it's the least you deserve.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 15:51

Oops: Justine, are you saying that the Dm using this stuff may well be an infringement of your copyright, but you didn't know and didn't ask them to stop putting the column in place?

Yes that's about the size of it - probably need to firm us the legal opinion before can say definitively though.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 16:01

Sorry?

Ahem - our new Terms of Use are up on the site. As suggested and agreed some time ago we now talk about non-exclusive copyright. Sorry for the delay!

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 16:10

It means you still retain copyright too afaik - ie we have shared copyright.
so if you chose to post the same thing somewhere else we cannot claim copyright.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 16:13

Oops:
Erm (I didn't write/prepare this) - will find out!

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 16:15

Probably quoteTHISyafuckers, is it worth anything?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 16:15

Is this a good moment to mention that the Pregnancy book has just plopped on my desk and that Boco's illustrations are lovely?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 16:20

Goodness is it? That's not good. Best talk to the lawyers about what it means/why it's there then.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 16:22

Incidentally we have no intention of using anyone's personal details for anything at all as we explicitly say when you join up.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 16:30

Sell
I give up!

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 16:33

GF wasn't about copyright - was about libel - I'm quite good on that!

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 16:40

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.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 16:45

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 16:54

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 17:22

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.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 17:34

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...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 17:51

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!

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 17:57

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...

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates