Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Good luck sean, you're going to need it.
as in suing them? hey if they have to pay out you should hire somebody to fix the site.
so he really *does* know where you are
Sean's words, not mine
to paraphrase Blackader, "we'll be right behind you. About 35 miles behind you."
But still, I hope you win. Fuck them up mate
but she's financy, not copyright.
How Sean could lose? He's conducted the interview and put it on his site, then DM (boooOOOOoooo) steal it and publish it in their paper. Whats the grey area? How could the DM wriggle out of it? I DONT UNDERSTAND IM JUST SHOE MAKERS SON
So a story in one media outlet won't stay that way for long. It happens every day, no story stays exclusive. Especially when the material in question is answers in an interview, so it's not like the DM stole sean's own writings directly.
However, most of the time, out of a sense of fairplay, other media outlets will credit where it's come from - 'speaking to The Sun, Cheryl Cole said...' or whatever, which sean is claiming the DM didn't do (but is now doing).
We don't have fair use provisions in UK copyright law (like in the US).
What we do have are defences for infringement based on "fair dealing" for various purposes. I don't see the fair dealing for criticism or review defence being applicable because they're not criticising or reviewing the article itself, but fair dealing for the purposes of reporting current events might be applicable.
However for that defence to apply there are a number of criteria to satisfy and I can't see the Daily Mail showing that their use of the material was "fair" - it's pretty clearly for commercial gain and there isn't an overriding public interest in them making this material available (not least because it already was, and for free!)
The attribution thing is a red herring too. Copyright infringement is still copyright infringement if you attribute where you copied the infringing work from; attribution helps you out in claiming fair dealing, though.
To my mind the grey area is whether a "substantial part" was taken, which is somewhat subjective and not a matter of comparing word counts. My unprofessional opinion is that the copyright in the article has likely been infringed and no fair dealing defence is applicable, but I'm not a judge.
I don't have the funds to 'sue' and I doubt there would be the gold at the end of the rainbow to press really hard.
However, after consulting a lawyer, and speaking them, we are being compensated. Not heard back from The Sun or The Express as yet, who published quotes from the piece without attribution. Apparently some agency was pimping the story around with a sensationalist twist, which to my mind takes what Paul McCartney said out of context.
"Adams has said that the paper did credit DIS."
that's from musicweek. Who's right?
Nor did about 200 other sites, but the story appeared to originate from The Mail (although they have said it was an agency that provided the story) (and I would presume they thought the agency providing the story had asked for permission, out of courtesy, etc)
It's funny to read things like "Adams has said..." when it was just a post on my Facebook wall.
There wouldn't be much point pursuing it unless Sean's a secret millionaire whose best buddy is a copyright barrister.
The other websites that nicked the copy probably stole it from the Daily Mail rather than DiS, so the paper trail of getting them all to attribute it would be a complete nightmare.
Sean Adams sleeps nude in an oxygen tent which he believes gives him sexual powers.
That's a half truth!
I do love a floatation tank session.
Frey Jones of the show Rock Bottom
So the Mail did attribute in the first place... which means his main gripe is that the quotes are out of context and misleading? Well, if that is to the detriment of Mr McCartney, that's for him and his people to decide and pursue, and for the DM, not DiS to defend.
Also, sean says: 'At no point does he say he had any problem writing. Quite the opposite in fact'.
McCartney said: 'If I would have a writer's block, I look back now and can say that was the over-stimulation'. So sometimes he couldn't write, due to the drinking? Sounds like that was an occasional problem to me. Certainly enough for the DM to say so.
Attribution doesn't prevent an infringement taking place, but it might help out in providing a defence (see previous post upthread).
The reason I put "(probably)" above is that there's some precedent to suggest that the copyright infringement can only be demonstrated if the copied material was capable of being copyrighted in its own right. A few lines of quotes might not be. But that's possibly "bad law" now and superceded by more recent European decisions.
The moral rights angle in the linked article is a bit half-arsed really, but you're right in stating that it would be McCartney's issue.
for a Mansun reunion :(
i hate papers, i hate what they do, i hate how they distort, i hate the mail especially.
CG reads the Guardian.
and it seems that most DiS users read the DM. Strange, eh?
He never actually reads them properly
And how do we know he doesn't read the DM as well?
To make myself look/feel grown up I wore a suit (with waistcoat) and on my lunch break one day I bought a copy of the Daily Mail, which I proudly bought back into the office to show everyone just how mature I was. Because, you know, adults read the Daily Mail.
It is, to this day, the only time I have every paid money for that newspaper.