I was surprised this morning to find a couple of messages saying, "I liked what you wrote in The Mirror, well done."I was surprised because I hadn't written anything for the Mirror. It seems you don't have to these days. I did a bit of googling... and found this. If the words are familiar to you, that'll be because you read my last blog.
As did someone at The Mirror. Who then cut and pasted it into the paper. Odd.
Apparently someone on the Radio 2 breakfast show was talking about how I'd written a piece for The Mirror on the whole Clarkson thing too. I don't imagine many of those who read it thought that it wasn't written specifically for the paper.
Which is a bit cheeky of them to say the least. Oh well. As if we needed a lesson in not believing what we read in the papers at the minute.
Or maybe this is how things work these days and this blog is automatically being fed into the Mirror. I hope so. I can't wait to see this one!
Looking forward to seeing what they say about this. Surely you've at least contacted them?
ReplyDeleteThat looks like an absolutely egregious copyright violation (and no newspaper could claim not to understand the concept of copyright). They're also using your name and identity for their own profit without your consent. I hope you do something significant to convince them that this sort of thing isn't okay.
ReplyDeleteYou can submit your fresh evidence to the Leveson enquiry at: generalenquiries@levesoninquiry.org.uk
ReplyDeleteOf the forms of redress you might like to explore (if any), it's worth remembering that Leveson Inquiry is taking written submissions on the current module, namely issues related to the press and the public, until the end of January.
ReplyDeleteClarkson: Not illegal, not particularly offensive, and so what if he is?
ReplyDeleteDeal with it. It's real.
@Stephen, @Steuard @Karin @pholloway I'm not planning to do anything. I really can't raise the energy to care all that much.
ReplyDelete@James: you've posted your comment in an odd place. If you've an opinion about Clarkson that you're desperate to share, maybe finding a blog about him would be the place for it.
It does seem rather foolish of a newspaper to steal the work of a public figure in the middle of the Leveson Inquiry. Then again, people have been remarking for years that print media is on the verge of death. Maybe the employees of same have swung suddenly to that opinion for no reason, and thus don't think it matters.
ReplyDeleteAs for Clarkson himself, I had quite forgotten he existed until he did this spot of self-publicising, as Top Gear's off the air. Canny fella.
could Clarkson be found poetry this week?
ReplyDeleteWow. I'd be a lot more annoyed about this than you seem to be. Not only are they suggesting that you would write for them, they're getting away with not paying you. Also, I think it's fair to say that writing for a blog audience of fans is a bit different to writing for the general Mirror readership. Maybe you would have written it differently for the Mirror. Maybe you wouldn't, but it would have been nice if they'd checked that with you.
ReplyDeleteIf I say here that the Daily Mirror are a bunch of cunts will they print that?
ReplyDeleteDave please do at least raise your concerns to them. You can't let them just get away with things like this. Don't set the precedent that it is ok to steal your content and make money from it. Where would they stop...
ReplyDeleteJust send a bill you can probably get the IP address and DOB them into the paper as a liability as well if inclined
ReplyDeleteI agree, you should raise it with them - it's your copyrighted material and you should be paid for it - and it would have been nice for them to ask you, too!
ReplyDeleteDon't forget to contact them about you payment. Unauthorized use gets you at least 2x the usual fee for a contracted journalist.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the other posts, you should at least register an objection, or - less than that - an acknowledgement to them that you know what they've done.
ReplyDeleteAre they paying you?!
ReplyDeleteLots of people seem keen on me taking action. I can't be bothered. It wouldn't achieve anything.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Chortle I'm hitting out at the Mirror over it. This must be the tamest hitting-out ever.
They also seem to've renamed you: “YES SAYS COMEDIAN DAVE GORMAN JEREMY,” runs the heading on the web edition, rather oddly.
ReplyDeletePlease would you consider invoicing ‘The Mirror’, not for yourself but for the sake of career journalists trying to earn a living. If the tabloids realize they can get away with copying text from public figures who won't complain, then that's fewer pages they need to fill with work from paid writers.
(For the avoidance of any doubt, I'm not a journalist; my personal interest here is limited to being somebody who appreciates the existence of journalism.)
Thanks.
It's not like this is the first instance of it happening. Just the first time it's happened to me. They know where the law stands and I don't doubt for a minute that they're just inside it. It's really not all that important... but an interesting lesson in how the papers operate.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the first time your work has been blatantly ripped off though, is it? There was that bloke that won a competition in (I think) The Guardian with one of your photos.
ReplyDelete@denmarkjon: true, but a punter sending in one of my photos and ticking a box to say it's his own work is something that nobody on the paper can realistically prevent. (That said, I thought their response after the event was pretty shit)
ReplyDeleteBut it's a different situation to this. This is worse in many ways - the paper knows exactly what it's doing. But that's also the reason why there's no point trying to do anything. This isn't something that slipped through the net without the editor knowing... they do know what they can get away with!
If not for you, then for the sake of others who have their photos, words, and stolen, invoice them - at a rate of no less than £3 per word. I'll send them an invoice if you like on your behalf. A major company is using your work and your name and your content to make money from you and relies on the affected - you - not being bothered when it happens. If you're bothered enough to write a blogpost, you're bothered enough to get yourself or someone else to call them or invoice them.
ReplyDeleteJust saw this mentioned on Twitter. I say put in an invoice!!
ReplyDeleteAre The Mirror really THAT stupid to wonder why some are calling for an end to the free press when they do things like this?
I've had this happen to friends of mine who are writers... they submit a pitch, get the okay to send in the article with the prospect of writing for a fee, are told that it can't be used... and then, hey-ho, it magically appears in the paper anyway.
ReplyDeleteOne friend, a travel writer, was told the publication of his feature for nothing was him being paid in prestige. Er.... no. Not as a seasoned writer used to actual monetary payment. Persistent invoicing has helped recoup some of the money owed.
I do think it's especially important for those who provide a lot of free web-content on their websites to defend their work. It should be paid content for paid markets. Some writers do actually live in freezing cold garrets...
I used to work for a photo agency and had newspapers using our stuff all the time without paying for it, until they got a bill...
ReplyDeleteIt was an arse dealing with contribution accounts all the time but was worth it (probably not been in business anyway)
Point is, it's going on all the time, the media companies asking for photos etc. for free and often published without attribution. I'd at least pint an email off to say you know about it, and doing it again is going to be greeted with a large invoice.
My 2 pence worth...
The all important © symbol seems conspicuously absent from the Daily Mirror website. I wonder, therefore, whether this makes it public domain and gives you carte blanche to publish it as your own work and re-label it "The Daily Dave".
ReplyDeleteI'm sure they'd get very litigious very quickly.
Although they undoubtedly believe that they are operating legitimately, I suspect - given that blogs are a relatively recent phenomenon - that it's an area of the law that is yet to be really tested.
I don't think a court in the land would fail to at least recognise that what they're doing is inherently wrong.
Dave, at the top of your blog you give us the advice "DON'T DROP LITTER. DO SAY PLEASE AND THANK YOU. SIMPLE, REALLY"
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be important to you. The Mirror did not say please, and almost certainly will not be saying thank you, and their production is nothing more than litter.
So, please send them an invoice. Thank you.
(PS, loved the show, thanks)
It's your blog, it's your right not to give a shit.
ReplyDeletePity though. So many people in the world don't care; it would have been nice to think that maybe you do.
Steuard said...
ReplyDeleteThat looks like an absolutely egregious copyright violation (and no newspaper could claim not to understand the concept of copyright).
acorn soft planetoid newspaper might give it a good go though...
http://www.bbcmicrogames.com/acorns
oft.html
williams defender anyone...
ooops
ReplyDeletejust noticed
snapper, arcadians & meteor better navigate away from this site altogether it must be one of those illegal roms sites the library blocks - mind you they seem to block emails updates drivers operating systems browsers connection speeds bandwidth useful data repeated data multiple repeated data youtube flashplayer streaming the same low quality video that it already streamed to your pc for the umpteenth time lucky you arent on a mobile tqariff cause you are now roaming without having left the house... only £4,000.00 for the same £20 worth of 1% of the conenction speed they advertise data mekum pae jezz mek um pae - stand in middlut ggrrrroad wi ur and aaat lak em fruggin afghans on tggrrroad to durunta near t 88 on t t'il saaad
your email has been deleted
ooops
ReplyDeletejust noticed
snapper, arcadians & meteor better navigate away from this site altogether it must be one of those illegal roms sites the library blocks - mind you they seem to block emails updates drivers operating systems browsers connection speeds bandwidth useful data repeated data multiple repeated data youtube flashplayer streaming the same low quality video that it already streamed to your pc for the umpteenth time lucky you arent on a mobile tqariff cause you are now roaming without having left the house... only £4,000.00 for the same £20 worth of 1% of the conenction speed they advertise data mekum pae jezz mek um pae - stand in middlut ggrrrroad wi ur and aaat lak em fruggin afghans on tggrrroad to durunta near t 88 on t t'il saaad
your email has been deleted
mek um ruddy well pae
send um jim davidson as unenvoy wie iz pokets full ut greneades! mek um ruddy pay lak wort vev med us pae - 270m furt ruddy grrroad from kabul to ruddy kandy ha ha second ruddy time wev builtit furum ow meni taaams kan the blowt sem rudup
@Ellie (& others) don't mistake "not-sending-an-invoice" for "not-giving-a-shit". Mistake it for "having-asked-some-questions-and-discovered-that-there-is-nothing-to-be-gained-by-pursuing-it-except-more-hassle". I'm being pragmatic, that's all.
ReplyDelete'Pragmatic' is an odd way to spell spine-less.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete'Pragmatic' is an odd way to spell spine-less."
And so is "anonymous".
Obviously it's still bothering you Dave. Fight back I say.
ReplyDeleteYou've fought bigger fights before for smaller issues.
I don't know why people struggle to take in what I've already said on the topic. It does bother me that they just took my blog and represented it as if it was an opinion piece written for the Mirror... but I took advice about what I could do about it and the advice was: nothing.
ReplyDeleteThere's really no point urging me to fight something when I've already looked into it and been told that I can't. Ta dah!