Daily Mail refuses to pay journalist for republishing parts of her work

Daily Mail Australia has refused to pay a journalist for republishing parts of her work under its reporters’ bylines, telling her: “There is no copyright in an idea.”

Ginger Gorman, a freelance journalist, has had two major investigations originally published by News Corp Australia and Fairfax Media rewritten by the Daily Mail website. Neither Mail piece contains any original reporting. In one case, the Mail version does not have any link back to the original.

Gorman wrote to the Daily Mail editor-in-chief, Luke McIlveen, and demanded payment for its version of the trolling story that appeared on the Sydney Morning Herald site and the incest piece written originally for news.com.au.

“As you’ll appreciate, I’m a freelance journalist and I spend hundreds of hours on my investigations,” wrote Gorman, a former ABC journalist.

“It is unethical and possibly illegal for the Daily Mail to republish my work in this manner. In the first instance, your republication did great damage to the mental health of my interviewees.”

The Mail declined to pay her invoice for $2,000 but it did make some concessions, offering to remove one but not both of the stories.

“As you will be aware, there is no copyright in an idea,” said the Daily Mail assistant managing editor, Kimberley Brunt.

“Our journalists are free to follow articles in the media and, indeed, this practice is extremely common in the world of online journalism. Publication of [the internet troll story] does not in itself, therefore, amount to a breach of copyright.”

Mia Freedman’s Mamamia website also quoted and paraphrased extensively from Gorman’s incest story, without any original research, in a 900-word article under a different byline.

Guardian Australia understands that the journalists’ union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, is devising a campaign on this issue as the proliferation of online sites has led to a rise in the practice.

The Mail appears to have taken Gorman’s complaints seriously because Brunt offered to add a link back to the trolling article and donate to a suicide helpline.

“Notwithstanding the above, we would be willing to include a link back to your article on the Sydney Morning Herald’s website should you wish,” she said.

“We are also willing to make a goodwill donation to the Suicide Call Back Service detailed at the end of your article as a gesture of goodwill and in recognition of the important work it does on the issue of trolling.”

The Mail denies it acted “unethically and/or in breach of Australian copyright law” and said it would rely on copyright law’s defence of fair dealing.

In January Gorman wrote about the impact the stealing of copy by other publishers without payment was having on her life.

“[The child sexual abuse story] was the result of weeks of painstaking work – academic reading, long and difficult interviews, fact checking, legal advice, writing and rewriting and discussion with my editor,” she said of the incest story.

“No such concerns dogged the publishers Mamamia, the Daily Mail or Unilad.

“Within hours of my child sexual abuse story being posted online, ripoffs started emerging – with the bylines of other journalists posted on them. Mamamia took 900 words of my 1,900-word story.”

Mamamia removed its story after heavy criticism on Twitter, while the MEAA has come out in support of Gorman on social media.

When Britain’s Mail Online set up in Australia News Corp sent it a legal letter asking the company to stop using its content or face a lawsuit.

“We have taken this action because we believe the Daily Mail Australia is breaching our copyright by lifting substantial slabs of original content from a large number of articles from our mastheads,” a News Corp spokesman said in June 2014.

They reached a confidential legal settlement three months later.

Editor’s note: this article was amended on 26 June to clarify Mamamia’s treatment of Ginger Gorman’s original story.