DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Business of Photography >> Is It Legal to put Link to other site on your own?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 33, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/13/2007 09:34:13 AM · #1
Im just building my website and i was wondering if there can be any problem putting links for software/ tools and so and so..

like if i put a link to canon site or to dpchallenge...

thx
 02/13/2007 09:35:14 AM · #2
Most sites would welcome the free advertising! I don't see a problem with linking to other sites, I have hundreds of links on my website.
 02/13/2007 09:44:24 AM · #3
Most businesses PAY to have their links in sites (the ones with high traffic, anyways) Don't worry about it. It is free advertising for them.

P.S. While you are at it, check to see if sites that you like to refer to might perhaps have associate programs where you get a few cents every time someone clicks on the link to their site from yours.

Message edited by author 2007-02-13 09:46:15.
 02/13/2007 09:45:14 AM · #4
I think as long as its a LINK and not copied material you are perfectly fine.
02/13/2007 09:47:24 AM · #5
By the way, linking to other sites does nothing to improve your Google ranking. They need to link to you.
 02/13/2007 10:53:44 AM · #6
Some web sites enjoy the traffic. Some feel it is tantamount to theft of their bandwidth. Suggest if you're unsure, ask their web administrator.
 02/13/2007 10:59:06 AM · #7
It is usually absolutely fine to add a link.

The issues that might raise concern are if the terms and conditions of the linked site prohibit it (unusual) or if you are linking to material that is illegal or unlawful (eg material that breaches copyright, or contains illegal porn) - you'd have to get some expert advice on the matter.
 02/13/2007 11:20:07 AM · #8
Be carefull of deep linking without attribution...
 02/13/2007 11:24:29 AM · #9
Originally posted by dleach:
Be carefull of deep linking without attribution...


I've never heard of it, but after skimming through the article it looks like it's the same thing as hotlinking?
02/13/2007 11:28:04 AM · #10
It is kind of a stupid case. But I think that in general you are okay to link to a website or picture as long as you don't try to represent it as your own.
 02/13/2007 12:21:01 PM · #11
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Originally posted by dleach:
Be carefull of deep linking without attribution...


I've never heard of it, but after skimming through the article it looks like it's the same thing as hotlinking?


Not exactly. Deep linking means that you link to a page or simply to content WITHIN a site, perhaps a download link, without actually linking to the "top level" of the site. Hot linking is normally thought of as having a photo or other image on YOUR site that is actually hosted on a different site.

There is a difference. Typically, most sites prefer you to link to their "main" pages, not just to buried content. If they have a free download, they often prefer to control the path users take to that download.

There are no hard and fast rules. They do own the content, remember.
 02/13/2007 12:40:51 PM · #12
The main problem with deep-linking is that you're bypassing pages full of ads that they want to bombard their visitors with and instead, getting right to the content that people might actually want to see. Still, the chances that you run into somenoe who actually has a problem with this are fairly slim.
 02/13/2007 12:41:44 PM · #13
Originally posted by mk:
The main problem with deep-linking is that you're bypassing pages full of ads that they want to bombard their visitors with and instead, getting right to the content that people might actually want to see. Still, the chances that you run into somenoe who actually has a problem with this are fairly slim.


True dat. Just wanted to point out that there is a dif. :)
 02/13/2007 12:44:29 PM · #14
Originally posted by nards656:
True dat. Just wanted to point out that there is a dif. :)


Indeed. I was adding on, not contradicting. My experience has been that most of the internet world doesn't really have an issue with deep-linking, whereas hotlinking is Very Bad. (But IANAL so don't call me if you get sued. ;) )

Message edited by author 2007-02-13 12:49:37.
 02/13/2007 12:49:59 PM · #15
I personally think the case against deep linking is ridiculous, since it really should be protected against by the site owner if they don't want it to happen. But that doesn't mean that they don't have a "legal" right - at least in some states - to not allow it.
 02/13/2007 01:08:11 PM · #16
Internet law was the subject of my university thesis, and a few years ago I helped write a legal practitioner's guide to the law on the subject. It was the issue that triggered some the first UK cases on internet law (Shetland News website deep linking to news stories), and I am sure that it will continue for many years to come. My detailed experience is a little out of date, but I keep an ear open for relevant news.

The prohibition can be criticised from a technical POV (ie it may be prevented technically. The courts can be criticised for not really understanding the technical issues and therefore getting the legal application wrong. However, considering it analagously, it is very similar to tv broadcasting a rival station's satellite stream (common in the broadcasting arena) - which is prohibited by IP laws. The differences are the methods of delivery (the internet is probably not broadcast for most purposes, as it is a passive medium - important because there are different rules for broadcasting).

Anyway - my point is that it is an area of and for development.
 02/13/2007 01:39:13 PM · #17
Originally posted by Matthew:
...important because there are different rules for broadcasting).

Just curious, what IS the technical, legal definition of "broadcasting"?
 02/13/2007 02:24:10 PM · #18
You are okay to "link out" (as opposed to direct linking in which there is some abiguity) to another website. That's never really been questioned except for one case. The only types of links considered illegal in the courts have been to illegal contraband. (ie: child pornography or de-cryption, anti-DRM, anti-copyright software or code)

DeCSS code was made extremely contraband for a while. Posting it, linking to it, even printing it on a T-shirt was considered a criminal act. It was also one of the turning points for many in the copyright debate. Many ceased being supporters of copyright as it was realized that right holders were really nothing more than a Gestapo.

There has been much debate on the last, spurned by the DeCSS software code that allowed for extracting of DVDs. Ironically, this code was developed to allow a free DVD player to be used on Linux. The fact that it enabled extraction of DVD content was really a side not. The media giants went hog-wild. Once again abusing the concept of copyright and restricting personal freedom.

Look, you want your copyright, well it ends once you restrict my reasonable personal freedoms. And if I have to defend my rights at the barrel of a Glock, I will do so. Frankly, when you tell someone that they can't write their own software to watch legally purchased DVDs they own. Then copyrights have truly gone too far.

To put it in physical terms (because RIAA & MPAA are so prone to do so with their use of the terms "theft" & "piracy", neither being accurate). This would be akin to GM telling you that you couldn't use one of their engines in a car you built. Doesn't matter you took the engine out of a car you owned. Doesn't matter you built the new car. Nope...you can't use it or you go to jail.

Makes very little sense when put into real world terms.

*****************

Clarifications:

a) comments refer only to the U.S.

b) linking to child-pornography materials in the U.S., if discovered, may result in a situation in which one might find his or herself under prosecution by authorities. Not for copyright infringement, rather over the child-pornography content. Does this mean you've infringed copyright laws. No, but it's a cautionary guideline in reference to web linking because such type of linking can land someone into hotwater.

c) DeCSS code was written to enable the playback of legally purchased DVDs. At it's release it became extremely controversial. Under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) a judge required the code to be removed, and attempts were made to criminalize even linking to the code. In fact, a few individuals even printed T-shirts with the material and found themselves in legal duress over the matter. There was in fact no violation of copyright. However, an interpretation of the DMCA labelled the code in violation as to be soley intended for the breaking of copy-protection. This was not true. It's primary purpose was to enable playback of legally owned DVDs on a Linux system (ie: free software). It was quite controversial.

The act of "linking out" to another website is an inherent aspect of the web itself, and it is generally accepted that doing so is an acceptable practice. The above cases exemplify a few uncommon circumstances in which even linking out to another website can run into a legal quandary.

Direct linking, the aspect of incorporating web content available from one site into another another site (as done often on DPC through the use of the include image in order to display an image from another website) is a bit more gray. The ambiguity can result in notices to remove being sent and/or hosts removing websites. Thus it is something to be considered.

*Update: I erroneously used deep in lieu of the direct linking. Sorry, for the brain fart. Just wanted to correct it. (I do endeavor to admit my mistakes.)



Message edited by author 2007-02-13 19:47:53.
 02/13/2007 03:01:28 PM · #19
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by Matthew:
...important because there are different rules for broadcasting).

Just curious, what IS the technical, legal definition of "broadcasting"?


The definition changes depending on the context. In the CDPA 1988 it is defined as:

Originally posted by CDPA 1988:
In this Part a "broadcast" means a transmission by wireless telegraphy of visual images, sounds or other information which—

(a) is capable of being lawfully received by members of the public, or

(b) is transmitted for presentation to members of the public;

and references to broadcasting shall be construed accordingly.

 02/13/2007 03:47:54 PM · #20
Originally posted by theSaj:
You are okay to "link out" (as opposed to deep linking in which there is some abiguity) to another website. That's never really been questioned except for one case. The only types of links considered illegal in the courts have been to illegal contraband. (ie: child pornography or de-cryption, anti-DRM, anti-copyright software or code)


Please be careful. This paragraph is inaccurate in many ways.

Originally posted by theSaj:
DeCSS code was made extremely contraband for a while. [etc]


This subject is off topic, only partly accurate, it uses a misleading analogy, and reflects only a partial understanding of copyright and the law generally.
 02/13/2007 03:53:10 PM · #21
Originally posted by mk:
The main problem with deep-linking is that you're bypassing pages full of ads that they want to bombard their visitors with and instead, getting right to the content that people might actually want to see. Still, the chances that you run into somenoe who actually has a problem with this are fairly slim.


Okay MK google was only sued over it!
 02/13/2007 04:03:40 PM · #22
Originally posted by mk:
The main problem with deep-linking is that you're bypassing pages full of ads that they want to bombard their visitors with and instead, getting right to the content that people might actually want to see. Still, the chances that you run into somenoe who actually has a problem with this are fairly slim.


While you have a valid point, I disagree to a degree. When you deep link, or hot link, and massive numbers of folks follow the link, you are stealing bandwidth the linked-to site has paid for. At the extreme, you may be guilty of a denial of service attack. I don't know the law but I can imagine a site litigating to recover damages if the hot link shut them down (denial of service) or caused substantial monetary damage (paying for substantial bandwidth consumed).

I am sure there are other issues ... porn, IP infringement, defamation and so on. Those issues aside, you can cause substantial unintended harm. So beware, and be kind.
 02/13/2007 04:03:57 PM · #23
Best thing to do is if the links are to commercial sites is to ask them, many have specific links they like to have used with a coprate logo ect and would even keep track of traffic you send them as well as MAYBE paying you for sending them there.
As for anything else a good CYA would be to say this (link to specific item) is a good example from So and so(link to main site of previous item) that way you are linking both where the exact item is, giving credit to the orginator and givin reader the option to go to main site and look around themselves. Therefor covering best of both :) then of course if it is illegal then you shooting both feet not just one, but who would sue over having someone referred to them.
 02/13/2007 04:07:37 PM · #24
...


Message edited by author 2007-02-13 17:59:16.
 02/13/2007 04:39:22 PM · #25
Folks, please don't SHOUT in the forums. Other people are reading.

It's fine to disagree and debate points, but please stick to the issue and try not to make it personal.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 04:47:28 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 04:47:28 PM EDT.