I noticed it says "Please note that Mumsnet has copyright in all submissions to Mumsnet Talk"

[lingle]

I noticed it says "Please note that Mumsnet has copyright in all submissions to Mumsnet Talk" still despite the makeover.

You'd need an assignment in writing signed by the assignor for that. I think you're trying to say you want an exclusive royalty-free perpetual licence? A royalty-free perpetual licence is reasonable - not an exclusive one though.

Yes, that's right neenztwinz, copyright is a totally separate issue, and will depend on the Terms and Conditions of the site.

The Intellectual property of the idea of the bulletin board is held by who ever invented bulletin boards (not necessarily in their electronic form): ditto for Blogs / Diaries.

But if there is a new idea posted on a bulletin board or in a blog hosted my MN - such as a fail safe method for making a baby go asleep, or a 100% guaranteed recipe for a self supporting birthday cake construction, say in the shape of Big Ben, then it will depend on MN's TnCs as to who has the IP and copyright on that idea.

If I have a fabby idea about a way of doing something / a new invention / a new song etc I would be fool to post about it in the public arena without first claiming the IP, and patenting it if it was commercial - .

To claim the copyright of an idea, and the IP you can lodge the idea into a copyright bank. Or have proof with a notary, or just have proof by posting it to yourself with a dated stamped letter (obviously don't open the letter!!).

As far as I know I didn't sign any T and C from MN when I registered. And I cannot find any T and C in the registration page now which allow MN to publish any of my posts without my prior consent.

I think MN are in pretty murky waters with this one. Nowhere have I seen anything which overrides my automatic right to hold the copyright on the material I post.

Have a look at {{http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk Copyright service]]

Their argument could be that the posts have no merit, and are not by experts - original methodology to getting a baby to sleep, or not - but we have to ask - if the posts have no merit, how come they are all going towards a book which obviously has merit?

So these posts to which we hold the copyright, obviously DO have merit, and MN is publishing them as their own, without our prior consent and agreement of terms.

Yes, that's right neenztwinz, copyright is a totally separate issue, and will depend on the Terms and Conditions of the site.

The Intellectual property of the idea of the bulletin board is held by who ever invented bulletin boards (not necessarily in their electronic form): ditto for Blogs / Diaries.

But if there is a new idea posted on a bulletin board or in a blog hosted my MN - such as a fail safe method for making a baby go asleep, or a 100% guaranteed recipe for a self supporting birthday cake construction, say in the shape of Big Ben, then it will depend on MN's TnCs as to who has the IP and copyright on that idea.

If I have a fabby idea about a way of doing something / a new invention / a new song etc I would be fool to post about it in the public arena without first claiming the IP, and patenting it if it was commercial - .

To claim the copyright of an idea, and the IP you can lodge the idea into a copyright bank. Or have proof with a notary, or just have proof by posting it to yourself with a dated stamped letter (obviously don't open the letter!!).

As far as I know I didn't sign any T and C from MN when I registered. And I cannot find any T and C in the registration page now which allow MN to publish any of my posts without my prior consent. Anyone want to post a link? I've trawled through and still can't find it.

I think MN are in pretty murky waters with this one. Nowhere have I seen anything which overrides my automatic right to hold the copyright on the material I post.

Have a look at Copyright service

Their argument could be that the posts have no merit, and are not by experts - original methodology to getting a baby to sleep, or not - but we have to ask - if the posts have no merit, how come they are all going towards a book which obviously has merit?

So these posts to which we hold the copyright, obviously DO have merit, and MN is publishing them as their own, without our prior consent and agreement of terms.

Conversely, they do take the rap when we say stupid stuff (babies/rockets comments etc.) so it's fair really.

Have to agree with you

There has always been a ruddy great notice at the top of the Talkboards (when you go Musmnet > Talk) saying that MN are allowed to use your posts in whatever way they like and come round to your house for tea and cake without asking

Yes MP But I didn't sign anything to that effect when I signed up, so legally that's just a fart in the wind TBH.

And no they actually don't take the rap - their limited company does, and no doubt has a contingency fund set up - insurance and the like - if they are sensible at all about their business.
And if they used me, or anyone competent as a legal adviser, for Ip Copyright and the interwebs they wouldn't have to take any rap in any jurisdiction!!!

Can you tell I'm getting cheesed off with MN's blatant and illegal theft of our posts, set down here in good faith, and their obvious profit from our stolen expertise?

Interesting discussion - so the MN guides are just our posts put into a book?

How are the profits being used?

"Can you tell I'm getting cheesed off with MN's blatant and illegal theft of our posts, set down here in good faith, and their obvious profit from our stolen expertise?"

this seems odd to me - when there is a ruddy great message at the top of the talkboards, what is your good faith based on? Good faith that the Ruddy Great Message isn't true? I'm confused

There have been previous Mumsnet books over the years - it's one of the ways that Mumsnet makes money so that it can operate

I don't see the ishooo myself

It is odd. And, zazen, I think you must have agreed to the T&C when you signed up.

The posts finance the site whether they are in one of the books or just on the website itself. The advertisers wouldn't buy space if there wasn't user-generated content to keep the readership high enough.

How can people be so blind as to the economic underpinnings of this website? And why so hostile? We spend our lives sustaining one business or another by what we buy, what we watch, etc. And MN is an eithical enough business.

Hello - we have posted on this here.

We are actually in the process of asking our book agents to look at our wording re copyright, which as was pointed out on this thread, is a wee bit austere. (We did just pilfer it from some other website a few years back).

Incidentally newspapers are legally able to lift short quotes from books and websites without permission - it's a clause called fair reporting or summat like that. Someone legal will know...

Agree threadworm

And if lawyers are so clever why is it always LAWYERS that come on here saying I DIDN'T REALISE IT WORKED LIKE THIS YOU BASTARDS when everyone else knows exactly how it works? HMMMMMMM?????

Yes, that's right re fair use. E.g. for books you can generally make quotes of up to around four hundred words (and other similar conditions) without seeking permission.

I also think the reality is that people who write or are trying to write for a living understand not to spread all their content around too freely. They save it for their own 'work' which they know they can control.

So if you're upset about all your bon mots ending up in a MN book, my best advice would be: write your own book...

If you don't like it or want it then don't post. Simple. The conditions were never hidden from you and frankly in this day and age it is naive to post without understanding beforehand what is going to happen to those posts.

To argue the toss after the event is not good faith...

This is related and may be interesting. A guy who wrote an unofficial published guide to Torchwood got into trouble recently - despite not having breached any copyright laws - for quoting extensive reviews from livejournal. You would not believe the vitriol that came his way from the livejournalers - and, mainly female, they ended up accusing him (quite wrongly) of sexism.

The whole sorry thing is detailed here if people are interested.

Livejournalists are weird though aren't they

they think the telly is all REAL and that Barrowman is only gay because he hasn't met them yet

They are the goths of the internet

LOL at "goths of the internet"

They got so angry - morningpaper I think you'd be amused if you have time to read it.

GAH look at the first comment - what is that avator? Dr Who waggling his crotch?

Fair use

hehe they are all MOANING meanwhile blatantly ripping their avatars off the BBC

Helen, Justine, yes, you do need to change your statement. You need to state clearly that in return for free use of the forum, we agree that you can reproduce our posts in such form as you choose - ie you need to come as close as possible to making it contractual. And tbh for new users you need a tick box saying just that when they sign up (too late for existing users - you'll have to keep relying on implied licence granted as a result of the existing/improved notice).

As you'll know, you own the compilation copyright in your books. And whilst xenia (for instance) can publish a "working mum's guide" consisting exclusively of Xenia posts, she can't use anyone else's posts without their permission so there's no risk of an "unofficial" guide consisting of mumsnet posts unless an awful lot of us get together

unless of course you've already done this in terms and conditions! I can't remember! LOL and blush if I've already ticked a box!

Fair use is irrelevant here. Each post (except perhaps those with only a handful of words) is a separate copyright work and reproducing the whole post for a profitable book is never going to be fair use. Think of each post as a letter. Now think of publishing a book of Pricess Diana's letters and claiming "fair use". See what I mean? It's a question of licence/contract.

But newspapers could claim fair use when using MN quotes.

There is a big argument going on about blog entries and livejournal entries and whethe hey constitute a "complete work". To post a complete Simon Armitage poem, for example, would be in breach of copyright as, even though it could be as few as ten lines, it's the whole work.

There was a very interesting test case involving a "Human cannonball" whose entire act, lasting 11 seconds, was filmed and broadcast by a TV company without his permission.

yes neenztwinz that's right (like everything else that you've said). Reporting current events is one of the permitted purposes so fair use can apply there.

So The Times reports that Princess Di wrote "I love Dodi because he makes me laugh" in a letter. Maybe (big maybe) fair dealing (ignore privacy and other issues here).

But then publishers bring out a collected edition of Di letters. Very different.

what happened re human canonball unquiet? did it go to court?

So a paper quoting everything i've ever written on here, not right.

Quoting one post...