Am I Pamalam being set up by the Daily Mail?

Am I Pamalam being set up by the Daily Mail?

On 27 January
I received an email reading

EMAIL [1] FROM GM

Dear Pamalam,
I am interested to know where you got the quote that I wrote about Madelaine McCann as I am pretty sure I have never asked for my quote to be published on your site?
I am interested to know whether you are publishing quotes without people's permission?
Regards
G*** M***

-----------------------------

PAMALAM REPLY

Hi G***
I have no idea what you are talking about. If you point it out to me I will rectify it.
Cheers Pamalam


-------------------
EMAIL 2 FROM GM

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/43nov10/MAIL_03_11_10.htm
I have been quoted on this site with no prior permission. I am not sure this is either legal or allowed? The only place I can think that I wrote this was the Daily Mail are they aware you are taking their quotes as putting something on the Daily Mail is entirely different to allowing my quote to be shown forever on tis site.
I may look into this further as I believe it is illegal.

------------------
PAMALAM REPLY


Hi G***
That comment was part of the Daily Mail news article that is archived on my site.
A very interesting comment it was I might add. It is a shame to have to remove it.
----------------
But I have now removed your comment. I have replaced it with the following message
(Comment removed at request of author, Can be viewed on Daily Mail site on link at top of page.)
Cheers Pamalam

------------------------

EMAIL 3 FROM GM

I am concerned that it was pasted in the first place with no permission and have contacted the Daily Mail and will now be looking into this further as I am very unnerved by my sentiments being linked to this website with no permission from myself. I will be looking into the legality of this in due course. I am sure it would be unsolicited. You had absolutely no business copying my quote onto a website which I had given you NO permission whatsoever to use.
I plan on taking this further.
-----------------

EMAIL 4 FROM GM
It has not been removed. Is everyone else aware that you have copied and pasted their comments onto this website with no permission?



EMAIL FROM MAIL

New email today 31 January 2012 with a word document attachment
---------------


URGENT - legal notice

Sarah graham (sarah.graham@and.co.uk)

Tal Gottesman;


Please confirm removal of infringing material as soon as possible.
Sarah Graham
Managing Editor
Daily Mail Online
020 7938 6000 x3751
www.dailymail.co.uk


---------------------




WORD ATTACHEMENT



January 31, 2012

Gerry McCann’s Blogs By Pamalam

Attn: Legal Support, Complaints

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you in accordance with your published Guidelines formally to request you to take down extensive material being published by the gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk
which infringes the copyrights or other exclusive rights owned by Associated Newspapers Limited, publishers of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers and Mail Online website.

A feed of material from the Mail Online is being reproduced wholesale by the blogspot in question. This amounts to a systematic and wholesale copyright infringement of articles in which the copyright belongs to Associated Newspapers Limited.

PLEASE NOTE: WE CONSIDER (AS SHOULD BE OBVIOUS) THAT THE INFRINGER IS A REPEAT INFRINGER. We request that the entire blogspot be removed because of the systematic and flagrant character of the piracy of our copyright works.]

We have identified non-exhaustive examples, as follows. I have listed in each case first the infringing material, immediately followed by the material infringed:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/43nov10/MAIL_03_11_10.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326012/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-Kate-reveals-appeal-fund-run-dry-months.html

My contact e-mail is sarah.graham@dailymail.co.uk
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted material described above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
I await hearing from you as soon possible.
Yours faithfully,

Sarah Graham



------------------
PAMALAM REPLY TO MAIL



The comment from G** M*** that you have had a complaint about was removed from my site the same day that I received the email from her. Also all copied Mail comments have also been removed from my site. Gw*** M*** was informed of the removal of the comment on 27 January 2012

Cheers Pamalam
--------------

REPLY FROM MAIL

Hello Pamalam.

Thanks for your response. However, this remains an infringement of our copyright unless you can demonstrate this was syndicated via Solo Syndication.

Regards

Sarah
-------------------------------

PAMALAM NONE REPLY

[I am afraid she has now lost me, so no reply sent at this point,]
Cheers Pamalam

In answer to your initial question Pamalam, I'd say yes.

Do the Mail object to the attributed reproduction of their articles - and any comments at the end?

My guess is that it is being done all of the time, withough them raising the slightest objection!

Does GM stand for Gerry McCann perchance?

ps GM does not stand for Gerry Mccann lol

This is outrageous Pamalam. Tell them where to stick their copyright infringements! You are not using their comments for financial gain but for information purposes as a reference

How ridiculous. Is he now planning to sue the whole WWW. Does everyone who reproduces someone elses quotes get permission ? No. Its what the internet is made up of. If he thinks he can control the internet, he really has lost it.

You can't 'copyright' comments on the internet. If I were you I would put the comment back as it is obviously significant and highlight it.
This person is speaking nonsense.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326012/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-Kate-reveals-appeal-fund-run-dry-months.html


The comment is still on the Mail site 3/11/2010 1:39

-------------------------
I have sent the Mail the link to my policy page that is displayed on every page of my website.
Stating that is should cover anything that they may have overlooked

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Policy.html

Hope someone knowledgeable comes to the rescue soon Pamalam. I`d be getting myself a lawyer who`s up to speed on internet copyright law if I were you.

It would appear the Daily Mail is ashamed of its contents. I would have thought they would be only
too pleased to have some free advertising as on this side of the pond they have a dirt poor reputation as a newspaper.

Where in law does it say that it`s a requirement that everything transposed has to be legally syndicated. Syndication is just `sharing` - it`s not a legal requirement. They are trying to unnerve you - go to a good lawyer.

Is all the information that Jo M quotes from newspapers not legal then?

pamalam wrote:


The comment is still on the Mail site 3/11/2010 1:39

-------------------------
I have sent the Mail the link to my policy page that is displayed on every page of my website.
Stating that is should cover anything that they may have overlooked

If its the comment I think it is, then I can't understand what the complaint is about. I sense some sort of set up going on here

Loopdaloop wrote:You can't 'copyright' comments on the internet. If I were you I would put the comment back as it is obviously significant and highlight it.
This person is speaking nonsense.

I don't profess to know the legalities but I'm pretty sure you're right. How on earth can you copyright comments on the internet? If this was the siituation, the majority of us would have a case against someone! And Tony Bennett could take legal action against the Leicestershire Mercury for printing these comments they nicked from the Madeleine foundation website & copied into their article today. Ludicrous!

What a great quote they chose to 'steal' though. ;-)

"Mr Bennett was unavailable to comment yesterday."

He added on the Madeleine Foundation website: "It will be a strange thing if the court decides that in this land noted for its commitment to free speech, I am not allowed to discuss what is freely available to be distributed, and debated, in most of the rest of Europe."

Pamalam, sincere thanks for all the hard work you've put into your site. It is an excellent & massively useful source of collated information.

jd16 wrote:

pamalam wrote:


The comment is still on the Mail site 3/11/2010 1:39

-------------------------
I have sent the Mail the link to my policy page that is displayed on every page of my website.
Stating that is should cover anything that they may have overlooked

If its the comment I think it is, then I can't understand what the complaint is about. I sense some sort of set up going on here

Yes that will be the comment referred to.
This is what I could not understand. Why didnt she ask the Mail to remove her comment.
Then inform me of what she has done. I would not have hesitated to remove the comment from my site.

Why all the fuss, that is the bit I don’t understand.

Is it just a wind-up? Wonder if it's Sans_Souci trying to find something else to do other than boring everyone stiff on this forum.....

pamalam wrote:

jd16 wrote:

pamalam wrote:


The comment is still on the Mail site 3/11/2010 1:39

-------------------------
I have sent the Mail the link to my policy page that is displayed on every page of my website.
Stating that is should cover anything that they may have overlooked

If its the comment I think it is, then I can't understand what the complaint is about. I sense some sort of set up going on here

Yes that will be the comment referred to.
This is what I could not understand. Why didnt she ask the Mail to remove her comment.
Then inform me of what she has done. I would not have hesitated to remove the comment from my site.

Why all the fuss, that is the bit I don’t understand.

This is why I smell a rat. The comment itself you are both in agreement on what it says and on the same page. And why now after a year suddenly. This comment is hardly going to be seen by anyone as it buried right down the page too. Took me a while to find it and I knew where to look for it!

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Is it just a wind-up? Wonder if it's Sans_Souci trying to find something else to do other than boring everyone stiff on this forum.....

It would be easy to find out. The telephone number provided is defintely the Daily Mail. Someone could ring and ask?

I wouldn't be too concerned about the comment it is not now the real issue. The letter from the Mail is a different matter. Unfortunately by reproducing their articles wholesale their copyright is infringed if they wish to take issue. It might be worth a conciliatory response explaining that the purpose of the site is to provide a resource of materials on the case and is not for profit. It is also worth pointing out that all articles are properly credited and linked back to the original. They might be prepared to allow you fair usage.

Surely if you copy text that is in a public arena (such as a newspaper's website, and as long as you acknowledge where you got the information from, and you're not using their resources to make money for yourself), than you're free to copy and paste as much as you like?

Chris wrote:I wouldn't be too concerned about the comment it is not now the real issue. The letter from the Mail is a different matter. Unfortunately by reproducing their articles wholesale their copyright is infringed if they wish to take issue. It might be worth a conciliatory response explaining that the purpose of the site is to provide a resource of materials on the case and is not for profit. It is also worth pointing out that all articles are properly credited and linked back to the original. They might be prepared to allow you fair usage.

I have sent them a link to the policy page. So hopefully that will cover it
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Policy.html

jejune wrote:Surely if you copy text that is in a public arena (such as a newspaper's website, and as long as you acknowledge where you got the information from, and you're not using their resources to make money for yourself), than you're free to copy and paste as much as you like?

Unfortunately that is not the case.

Everybody does it ......how many people put things on websites which have been copied from somewhere on the Internet ..



If this person did not want there comment being COMMENTED about.... that person should not off commented in the first place ...in other words....kept ones gob shut.

That person has no say on her comment being copied and pasted, SHE put it on the net in the first place, clearly someone who doesn't know how to use the net - if it's really her.

I take it that we are talking about someone who contributed a pro McCann comment on the website?

Whoever is behind this really needs to get out more!

One has to ask what is about to come out, this is a bit desperate by a Pro McCann imo

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I take it that we are talking about someone who contributed a pro McCann comment on the website?

Whoever is behind this really needs to get out more!

No I was not a pro McCann comment this is what confused me. I would say more from Anti/ fence sitter