*Vague title alert* blogging and the media

[Wossi]

My sister has just linked me to a great piece of journalism from the Irish Mail on Sunday. Basically about 10 years ago a woman started a job as an air traffic controller in Ireland and decided to blog about it. Now the Daily Mail has taken *part* of the blog and ran a story about male chauvinists in the air traffic control industry.

Scan of the Mail - http://twitpic.com/zka77/full

The actual blog - http://melschregardus.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/in-response-to-irish-mail-on-sunday/

It also looks like it's a cousin of Dara O Briain - https://twitter.com/daraobriain

What's the deal with blogs these days in regards to something like happening? Can a newspaper honestly get away with using parts of a persons blog, taking chunks out of it and twisting it to make it story? If so, I'm glad I only post garbage on mine.

 

[Vonhelmet]

If she didn't give permission, then she can clobber them if she likes.

 

[Amp34]

If she didn't give permission, then she can clobber them if she likes.

Yep, no difference to publishing a load of pages from a book you don't have the rights to I think. Also I'd suggest the person who took that photo should send an invoice in too...

 

[V4NT0M]

Makes you wonder if the person who "wrote" the article is going to get a slap on the wrist or a pat on the back.

 

[apeZ]

They cannot get away with it. She should sue them for everything they've got.

The Mail never told me they were writing a piece about my blog. The journalist who wrote it never sent me an email asking me questions about my blog. I won’t do to his professional reputation what he has done to mine, but let’s just say that I wonder whether he would have expected me to answer his questions the way he wanted.

This is the key part.

 

[kaiowas]

The internet is public domain. If you choose to publish information into the public domain then you can hardly complain about it when people comment on it.

 

[Rich_L]

The key part

The Mail

Complete scum tbh.

 

[Wossi]

The internet is public domain. If you choose to publish information into the public domain then you can hardly complain about it when people comment on it.

This is partly why I asked here as my sister and I weren't sure if this was the case or not.

 

[Rich_L]

If you read the NUJ Code of Conduct I think the conclusion you can draw is that no-one in the NUJ works for the Mail.

Or equally, I trust the Mail will now report on the woman's blog under Section 2 of the PCC Editor's Code. Or on the other hand, I imagine they won't..

 

[Werewolf]

The internet is public domain. If you choose to publish information into the public domain then you can hardly complain about it when people comment on it.

However, if you are going to use it as a source for a story it is generally considered best practice (if not a legal necessity) to ask permission before you reprint it in part or in full for commercial gain.

Mind you, this is the Mail, which has in the past on multiple occasions used blogs without permission and attempted to get away with changing names only (either because they couldn't be bothered to ask permission in the first place, or because they were refused permission to use the blog).

There is a difference between public domain, and free to use commercially - a lot of authors have stories/short stories in the public domain under a non commercial agreement, but they still retain full copyright and it cannot be used commercially without their agreement (which is what the mail tends to do).

 

[Amp34]

The internet is public domain. If you choose to publish information into the public domain then you can hardly complain about it when people comment on it.

Rubbish. Text is the same as images and images on the internet most certainly aren't public domain.

I'm sure she could either send them a large bill or take them to court and do them for lible/slander/copyright infringement and quite possibly get them to print a retraction and apology if she wanted.

 

[Moredhel]

If you publish something on a blog, unless that blog specifically says it's ok or releases it under a licence like the creative commons. You -cannot- reuse that content or publish chunks of it without permission.

It's as much a copyrighted piece of work as the latest single on top of the pops, and you can be hauled up in front of a civil court for doing so.

 

[Greebo]

Rubbish. Text is the same as images and images on the internet most certainly aren't public domain.

I'm sure she could either send them a large bill or take them to court and do them for lible/slander/copyright infringement and quite possibly get them to print a retraction and apology if she wanted.

Blogs and legal ownership is still a complicated area and the jury is still out on this one as to whether the author owns the blog or not.

I beleive there is a case going through the uk courts as we speak and Holland and Germany have both ruled on test cases there and given opposite decisions.

However, she should be able to sue for libel and the use of the photo.

 

[Greebo]

If you publish something on a blog, unless that blog specifically says it's ok or releases it under a licence like the creative commons. You -cannot- reuse that content or publish chunks of it without permission.

.

In her case, her blog site she posted on is under creative commons and based in the States so not sure where that leaves her on copyright.

 

[Amp34]

Blogs and legal ownership is still a complicated area and the jury is still out on this one as to whether the author owns the blog or not.

I beleive there is a case going through the uk courts as we speak and Holland and Germany have both ruled on test cases there and given opposite decisions.

However, she should be able to sue for libel and the use of the photo.

I'd suggest (and I would be really annoyed if it wasn't the case) that anything I wrote in my blog, on my domain, on my paid for hosting with a copyright notice should be no different to a book. I would be most displeased if some magazine took one of my blog posts and posted it as an article for example.

I know all of that may not be the case for her but websites IMO should be exactly the same as other media (books, magazines, music, films) and fall under the same rules, if not then there's something wrong there.

 

[Greebo]

I'd suggest (and I would be really annoyed if it wasn't the case) that anything I wrote in my blog, on my domain, on my paid for hosting with a copyright notice should be no different to a book. I would be most displeased if some magazine took one of my blog posts and posted it as an article for example.

I know all of that may not be the case for her but websites IMO should be exactly the same as other media (books, magazines, music, films) and fall under the same rules, if not then there's something wrong there.

I think you would be fine with yours. The problem comes when you use blogging sites and you give up some or all of rights when you signed up in the terms and conditions. Some good blogging sites clearly states that copyright remains with the author.

It does seem to be a problem yet to be resolved. 563 million searches on "copyright blog content" on google alone.

 

[Vonhelmet]

The internet is public domain. If you choose to publish information into the public domain then you can hardly complain about it when people comment on it.

Um, no. The Internet is most certainly not public domain. I'd guess that you don't actually know what the term "public domain" means.

 

[Vonhelmet]

In her case, her blog site she posted on is under creative commons and based in the States so not sure where that leaves her on copyright.

Here's some detail on the general terms of CC licenses...

# Attribution (by): Licensees may copy, distribute, display
and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these.
# Non-commercial Noncommercial or NonCommercial (nc): Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.
# Non-derivative No Derivative Works or NoDerivs (nd): Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it.
# Share-alike ShareAlike (sa): Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the original work. (See also copyleft.)

So, the Mail can use it so long as they attribute the original content to the author (probably OK), use it for non-commercial purposes (boned), don't create derivative works (boned) and provide it under the same license as the one under which they obtained it (boned).

 

[Greenlizard0]

Just to clear something up; the Irish Mail is their version of The Daily *spits* Mail?

I'm always curious as to who owns posts written on internet forums. Say here for example, Spie, or the person who wrote it?