Interesting article on some legal issues, concerning the internet i.e. copyright infringement, linking to other websites, using thumbnails from other sites, ect.... click here
Since I am a linkaholic myself, this issue has long been of interest to me. The key buzz phrase is "deep linking" -- i.e. linking to a specific item within a website, rather than to the web-site's main page. Here's a key summary from Gigalaw.com: Emerging Legal Guidance on 'Deep Linking'. This summarizes the Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com case, which has widely been hailed as a "green light" for deep linking. Here is what Judge Harry Hupp stated with regard to copyright infringement: ... hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act (whatever it may do for other claims) since no copying is involved. The customer is automatically transferred to the particular genuine web page of the original author. There is no deception in what is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently. ... But, the concluding remarks in the Gigalaw.com article call for caution: ... Clearly, Judge Hupp leaves open the possibility for a claim of copyright infringement and unfair competition in cases where the user could be confused as to the source of content or be oblivious to the fact that he had been linked into the interior of another site. In the majority of the instances of deep linking -- where there is no confusion as to source, where the user knows he has been transported into another site -- is deep linking always okay? Probably not. It is highly unlikely that a single, short opinion on a motion to dismiss will conclusively determine the issues involved in deep linking. The concerns expressed in Ticketmaster's October statement regarding deep linking have merit. Much as in cases involving such issues as framing and meta-tagging, issues of fairness will inevitably factor into the resolution of the deep-linking dilemma. Factors such as the status and motives of the linking site are bound to enter into future court decisions. ... The article that 'me again' cites is about a case where an image search site, ditto.com, was linking to full-size images in such a way that the images would display within ditto.com web-pages. This is known as "inline linking", and the problem is that the true source of the content is obscured by it being displayed inline in someone else's web pages. As discussed in the article, in this case the display of full-size images by inline linking was ruled unacceptable, but the display of small thumbnails (which could not be confused with the originals) was deemed OK. This decision seems fair (to me, a layman). Of more concern to me are recent situations in which newspapers and magazines have threatened people who run websites that link to articles directly (without forcing viewers to look at all the ads). Here are some examples: Site Barks About Deep Link. This is about Dallas Morning News threatening operator of BarkingDogs.org who had deep-linked to articles in the Morning News website. Another Run to a Deep-Link Suit. This is a similar situation involving demands by Runner's World that LetsRun.com not deep-link to ad-free versions of articles available on the Runner's World website. In these situations there is no deception or possibility of confusion. Nevertheless, the newspaper and magazine are alleging copyright and trademark infringement, and unfair competition. If these cases go to court, they will be watched very closely.
laws, and money I don't think there will be much to regulate the internet until the on-line businesses become too sleezy. At this point the amount of product solicitation is huge. All the best!
