This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/dec/09/mail-online-martin-clarke

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
So, Lord Rothermere, when will you stop Mail Online from ripping off content? So, Lord Rothermere, when will you stop Mail Online from ripping off content?
(about 1 hour later)
Is Mail Online ever going to put its house in order? Does it care about plagiarism? Has its editor, Martin Clarke, ever explained the meaning of common journalistic courtesy - let alone copyright - to his staff? Amended 3.30pm: Is Mail Online ever going to put its house in order? Does it care about plagiarism? Has its editor, Martin Clarke, ever explained the meaning of common journalistic courtesy - let alone copyright - to his staff?
I ask these questions against the background of yet another blatant rip-off by the Daily Mail's website. I ask these questions against the background of yet another blatant rip-off by the Daily Mail's website. But this blogpost has been amended to put that attack on the Mail into context.
This time, it involves an exclusive interview with Nelson Mandela's granddaughter, Maki (Makaziwe Mandela-Amuah), obtained by freelance Sharon Feinstein and published by the Sunday Mirror yesterday. It involves an exclusive interview with Nelson Mandela's eldest daughter, Maki (Makaziwe Mandela-Amuah), which was obtained by freelance Sharon Feinstein and published by the Sunday Mirror yesterday.
Feinstein, a long-standing freelancer with a terrific track record in interview scoops, was astonished when a friend called to tell her that her interview was being run by Mail Online.Feinstein, a long-standing freelancer with a terrific track record in interview scoops, was astonished when a friend called to tell her that her interview was being run by Mail Online.
Not only did it not carry any attribution for her or the newspaper, she said, but it had someone else's byline and even bore an Associated Newspapers copyright line. There is a dispute about the facts here. It is agreed by both Feinstein and the Mail that she was not credited. But there is a disagreement about whether the paper itself was mentioned. Feinstein says it was not.
Feinstein sprang into action, contacting the bylined reporter to demand proper attribution and demanding that she be paid for the theft of her content. He told her he didn't have the authority to do so. The Mail says it was and, for good measure, that there was also a hyperlink to the Mirror's article. I believe this to be the truth.
After several more calls, she said the Mail Online copy was altered to include a reference to the Sunday Mirror. But there was, she maintains, still no mention of Feinstein. What is not at issue is that the story was under a Mail's journalist's byline and even bore an Associated Newspapers copyright line.
She went on complaining - even emailing the editor-in-chief, Paul Dacre - and, eventually, the Mail took the whole item down, though - of course - the Google reference remains, as above. When Feinstein was tipped off, she sprang into action, contacting the bylined reporter to demand proper attribution and demanding that she be paid for her content. He told her he didn't have the authority to do so.
This morning, another Associated title, Metro, also ran quotes from Feinstein's interview, again without any attribution. After several more calls, she was unable to persuade Mail Online to insert her name. She went on complaining - even emailing the editor-in-chief, Paul Dacre - and, eventually, the Mail took the whole item down, though - of course - the Google reference remains, as above.
Feinstein, who has often written for the Mail in the past, remains furious about the episode. She told me: "It's ironic, isn't it, that I was writing about Mandela, who stood up to oppression, and that the Mail, the bullies of Fleet Street, ripped off my interview. It's journalistic oppression and it's got to stop. It's just wrong." This morning, another Associated title, Metro, also ran quotes from Feinstein's interview, again without mentioning her.
When I wrote last month about Mail Online plagiarising an interview with Emma Thompson by the Los Angeles freelance, John Hiscock, the Mail made amends and I imagine they will do the same for Feinstein. Feinstein, who has often written for the Mail in the past, is furious about the episode. She told me: "It's ironic, isn't it, that I was writing about Mandela, who stood up to oppression, and that the Mail, the bullies of Fleet Street, ripped off my interview. It's journalistic oppression and it's got to stop. It's just wrong."
She says: "Maki has been a friend of mine for years. The world's press have been trying to interview her and she has refused them. She spoke only to me. She is disappointed about the Mail running my material."
This is a continuing problem, especially for freelancers who obtain exclusive interviews through their hard-won personal contacts. Then they see it appear on Mail Online and subsequently watch it distributed across the net without any mention of its provenance. They vanish from the stage.
I wrote of a similar instance last month, about Mail Online plagiarising an interview with Emma Thompson by the Los Angeles freelance, John Hiscock.
I understand how the problem came about, I know the Mail made amends and I hope they will do the same for Feinstein.
But that's beside the point because it shouldn't happen at all. And these are not isolated cases. After my Hiscock-Thompson piece, I received emails from several journalists who told of similar stories (though they had less luck in persuading the Mail to compensate them).But that's beside the point because it shouldn't happen at all. And these are not isolated cases. After my Hiscock-Thompson piece, I received emails from several journalists who told of similar stories (though they had less luck in persuading the Mail to compensate them).
Similarly, I have had reports from American journalists of content theft by the Mail's US site. The central point is, however, that it's a deeply unfair and unethical practice. No news is exclusive nowadays for much more than 10 minutes, if that.
So that leads me to my final set of questions. Does Dacre not have any power over Mail Online and/or Clarke? If not, what about the owner, Lord Rothermere? Is he happy to allow his website to steal other people's journalistic work? And I can understand that a news website wants to relay all that's available elsewhere. Running a couple of paragraphs is therefore reasonable enough, as long as there is a hyperlink to the original (as the Mail states unequivocally that there was in this case).
I am not expecting the website to sit on its hands when it sees that a rival has an exclusive. It is understandable for them to run a couple of paragraphs, but they must explain their provenance and, incidentally, best practice should also mean the inclusion of a hyperlink to the original. But it's not surprising that freelances who land exclusives feel they are being ill-treated in this cavalier digital world. As far as they are concerned - and I agree with them - their work is being ripped off.
Milord Rothermere, I appeal on behalf of all freelancers everywhere - curb your Mail Online thieves. So that leads me to my final set of questions. Is it time for Dacre and Clarke to draw up a set of guidelines for the cover versions of articles published by other outlets?
These would need to include the proportionate amount of material to run, full explanation of provenance (including, where appropriate, the identity of freelance writers), and no bylines for "reporters" required to rewrite copy.
The best man to make this happen is surely the Mail's owner, Lord Rothermere. He cannot be happy about overseeing a website that plunders other people's journalistic work?
So Milord Rothermere, I appeal on behalf of all freelancers everywhere - if you cannot curb your Mail Online thieves, at least tame them.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.