Daily Mail Legal Department Email????

momumission

Does anyone know the email for the Daily Mail Legal Department???

tried googling it however, I just got the address.

would appreciate anyone's help.

thanks:rotfl:

whatmichaelsays

You'd be better off phoning Associated Newspapers (020 7938 6000 ) and giving them details of your complaint. Most of the legal teams in the media houses I've worked in won't acknowledge emails from Joe Public.

After all, the Daily Fail legal team has been pretty busy this year, what with the oodles of libel complaints and the five censures from the ASA.

NeverInDebt

whatmichaelsay not sure you realise but links aren't allowed in signatures

paddyrg

Hmmm when you say 'legal dept', are you talking about the right legal news desk, or have you been wronged by the newspaper and want to sort it out? If so I'd imagine you'd be better off writing to the editor-in-chief, and he'll get his lawyers to write back to you! Or you talk to your own lawyers and they'll write to the paper on your behalf...

PhylPho

It'd be best to say *why* you're trying to contact the legal department, OP. Aside from the fact that, er, there isn't one that deals with the punter (because a newspaper is the sole client of its own legal services) whatever issue you have could range from outrage over a perceived libel to dissatisfaction with a Reader Offer.

momumission

Thanks for your replies and help on this matter.

Its a long story really. I participated in an article which they published. I signed nothing it was a verbal over the phone agreement, they have since sold this story to other magazines and claim they have copyright. So I want too write to them with my disapproval.

PhylPho

Not clear what is meant by "participated in an article"? Seems to imply rather more than being merely an interviewee. Whatever, your only course is to write to the Editor if you feel you've a legitimate grumble.

Freddie_Snowbits

momumission wrote: »

Does anyone know the email for the Daily Mail Legal Department???

tried googling it however, I just got the address.

would appreciate anyone's help.

thanks:rotfl:

When Lord Rothermore was in charge, it was the initially the precursor of Interpol following the Anschluss

This maybe a shock to the Mail Readers knowing their Nazi Loving past

whatmichaelsays

momumission wrote: »

Thanks for your replies and help on this matter.

Its a long story really. I participated in an article which they published. I signed nothing it was a verbal over the phone agreement, they have since sold this story to other magazines and claim they have copyright. So I want too write to them with my disapproval.

Which publications are these? Remember that Daily Mail is part of Associated Newspapers Ltd and linked with Associated Northcliffe Digital, which combined has a huge network of publications - all of whom will have access to any article produced by any other A&N publication.

Unless you agreed syndication rights or specifically detailed your conditions and restrictions prior to talking to the publication, they've done nothing wrong.

dacouch

Have fun with the Daily Mail "Headline Generator", click refresh to randomly produce a new DM headline http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

Freddie_Snowbits

I mind my message above

OK, minds me of my first thought of Journalists. A few years back, while serving, we had one or two in the local wanting news, hawking for a thread. Just so none of us talked to them, til one night when they were politely told to sup up and leave. The 'D Notice' issued meant there return was hindered.

As for journalists today, I gather that most expect to get some eleaborate form of payment for their stories that will see the source live a life of Riley from now until eternity, that I am afraid is not the case. Most newsgathering organisations these days do not pay for pictures, stories or other, as most will upload from their mobile phones details of the said, free, in the vain hope they become the next Lord Lichfield, not knowing that those around them gathered at the scene are doing the same. Just look at the terms for entering photos to the BBC and other sites. The copyright passes to the site, from the originator, and doing the upload, you agree to this.

Now as to the story, one minute your news is hot, and as a commodity, is syndicated across the press. If you do not want your name to appear in every paper, then do not proffer a story. One only has to look at the retired school teacher this very morn who is strewn across every piece of newsprint, but will be forgotten soon when the dust has settled, not matter how the dust come down. Unfortunately, by speaking or participating in an event or journalistic interview, you gave your consent to the story being used. If you did not want this, I am afraid though, the good you think you may have said, will only be reflected in part of the story. If you were small act in a larger story, I am afraid, there is little you can do, unless what you had said has been misquoted. Alas, most journos will be a dab hand at shorthand and have what you said in their pad, so I do not think you are misquoted.

So, it would appear that OP is in an article they do not want or party to. I am afraid, that unless you are misrepresented, then there is little you can do. Tis the same as some agreements I have, where I photograph people in homes or other, but I most not alter or doctor the image to misrepresent them, also I do the same with the models I use, should they become famous, then I cannot release misleading photos of them, just for the sake of doing so.

Alas, unless the report or article is libellous, you have little or no recourse to the law.

In the end, if you cannot handle the fire, then do not think the frying pan will get hot.