<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"We reported yesterday that the proxy Daily Mail browsing site Istyosty has been forced offline following a Cease and Desist order actioned by Associated Newspapers.\r\n\r\nThe Cease and Desist letter said:\r\n\u201COur client (the Daily Mail's publisher Associated Newspapers) recently became aware that you have been operating a website that, without authorizatron, copies, displays and makes available to users full reproductions of stories and images contained on the Mail Online website.&amp;quot;\r\nWell, the Daily Mail now finds itself accused of commercially reproducing photos it procured online, despite being denied permission to use it.\r\n\r\nAs paidContent reports today, blogger Alice Taylor had snapped some images in a London Gap store, of a skinny-legged mannequin. She tweeted it, twitpic'd one of the pictures which was picked up by her husband Cory Doctorow, from BoingBoing, before finally ending up in the Washington Post. That's the beauty of the social Web - information flows so easily.\r\n\r\nHowever, whilst the Washington Post sought permission to print the image and requested a further image and some quotes before publishing, the Daily Mail also contacted Alice for permission to reprint. Alice says in her Wonderland blog post yesterday:\r\n&amp;quot;'Could we use the photos', they said. I said, 'yes, if you donate \u00A3250' - a standard photo fee in my book, certainly less than what Getty charges, say - to a charity of my choice. I don't like the Daily Mail, and didn't want to give them commercial use of my pictures for free.&amp;quot;\r\nTo cut a long story short, the Daily Mail said it was too much money, Alice refused permission and then the Daily Mail went ahead and published anyway:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAlice also claims that not only did the Daily Mail not link through to BoingBoing, nor to the Washington Post, but her quotes in the Daily Mail article make it sound like she talked to them directly - when in fact they were lifted directly from the Washington Post's piece:\r\n\r\nIt's not clear whether or not the Daily Mail has since updated its piece, but the Daily Mail article does actually make it clear that the quotes are taken from the Washington Post, though the lack of any link-backs to the original tweets or to the article certainly works against the spirit of online reporting. And the fact that no permission was granted to republish the photos will certainly irk many, though it's not the first time the Daily Mail has been accused of this.\r\nLast December, the Daily Mail was sued for copyright infringement by a celebrity photography agency, which alleged it had used ten of its images without permission.\r\nAlice says at the end of her blog post:\r\n&amp;quot;I've  asked the Daily Mail to now pay up for the unauthorised use - and  knowing infringement - of these pics. I'm currently requesting 2 x \u00A31000  charitable donations, which I will request go to MIND and ORG.&amp;quot;\r\nWill the Daily Mail cough up? Don't hold your breath."^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://thenextweb.com/media/2011/08/17/daily-mail-accused-of-using-photos-without-consent-the-day-after-it-forces-istyosty-offline/>