On 29/01/14 13:15, scott wrote:
> 
> Agree with you completely John. My queries are more related to doing
> this for profit, when the party you are linking to are trying to force
> you to pay some horrendous fee (which you can't afford) or take you to
> court if you don't stop.
> 
> A concrete example, say you are developing a paid-for financial
> application for people to keep track of all their accounts, stocks,
> pensions etc. One operation you would like to incorporate is for the
> user to see the previous performance of any of their investments. To do
> this you allow the user to click a menu option in your app and then get
> taken to the Yahoo finance web page for that particular investment. Do
> Yahoo have any legal standing to force your app to stop doing that
> behaviour?
> 

If the web page is in the public domain, there is nothing to stop you
linking there. However, you must make it clear that Yahoo (to use your
example) are the owners of that linked page. You would probably have to
make this clear before the user clicked the button. Something like
'Click here to see Yahoo Finance results' would suffice.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

I've just found this link:
http://www.library.dmu.ac.uk/Support/Copyright/index.php?page=425

It's worth reading

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

> If the web page is in the public domain, there is nothing to stop you
> linking there. However, you must make it clear that Yahoo (to use your
> example) are the owners of that linked page. You would probably have to
> make this clear before the user clicked the button. Something like
> 'Click here to see Yahoo Finance results' would suffice.

Ah ok, so the illegal bit is not making it clear that the content is 
owned by someone else. I guess that's why in Google image search it 
shows the web domain it comes from when you hover over a result.

So in my Yahoo example, given that the Yahoo pages and the charts 
themselves all show the Yahoo name and a copyright notice, in theory I 
should be free to include these on a web site or app, so long as I make 
it clear they come from Yahoo.com (or whatever) and I don't deliberately 
hide or obscure the Yahoo name and copyright notice.

Post a reply to this message

Am 29.01.2014 14:04, schrieb scott:
>>> <a href="hof.povray.org/someimage.jpg">
>>
>> jpg might not be legal.
>
> Does the law list then which filetypes I'm allowed to link to and which
> I'm not? Seems odd.
>
>> html or whatever the full page is would seems
>> fair and legal (base of the Web).
>
> Of course, but what I struggle with is how this is perfectly legal, yet
> opening a new page at a specific point (eg to show just an image) and
> hide the address bar etc (which is essentially what the iframe tag does)
> is considered illegal. I don't get how the law could possibly
> differentiate between the two cases.
>
> One possibility is that the law requires the http address of all items
> on a page not from the same server as the page itself to be visible. But
> AFAIK such a law does not exist.

No; the law is far, far less technical.

It is up for judges to interpret the laws in how they apply to such 
situations.

If your web page makes any copyrighted material appear on the end user's 
screen that is served by someone else, and doesn't make this fact 
sufficiently clear, it might be argued that you are taking advantage of 
that material without consent of the copyright holder, and are therefore 
"stealing" their work.

If you'd really want to go to the technical level, then it would be the 
end user who would be doing something wrong, because they copy 
copyrighted material to their own computer, without being able to show 
how they obtained the copyright holder's permission for this reproduction.

No matter how you turn it though, /someone/ is doing something wrong 
there, because there /is/ copying involved, and it is - quite obviously 
- /not/ something the copyright holder can be generally presumed to 
approve of.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/14 14:36, scott wrote:
>> If the web page is in the public domain, there is nothing to stop you
>> linking there. However, you must make it clear that Yahoo (to use your
>> example) are the owners of that linked page. You would probably have to
>> make this clear before the user clicked the button. Something like
>> 'Click here to see Yahoo Finance results' would suffice.
> 
> Ah ok, so the illegal bit is not making it clear that the content is
> owned by someone else. I guess that's why in Google image search it
> shows the web domain it comes from when you hover over a result.
> 
> So in my Yahoo example, given that the Yahoo pages and the charts
> themselves all show the Yahoo name and a copyright notice, in theory I
> should be free to include these on a web site or app, so long as I make
> it clear they come from Yahoo.com (or whatever) and I don't deliberately
> hide or obscure the Yahoo name and copyright notice.
> 

That is my understanding, yes. It might still be wise to get permission.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 29-1-2014 12:44, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 29/01/2014 10:15, scott a écrit :

>> <img src="hof.povray.org/someimage.jpg">
>
> You're putting yourself at the mercy of a change of content.

Some people have been so fed up with such deep linking that they have 
changed the content to goatse.



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/2014 01:47 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> I've just found this link:
> http://www.library.dmu.ac.uk/Support/Copyright/index.php?page=425
>
> It's worth reading

That seems to sum it up well.

Of course, the thing that actually caught my eye was the domain name - 
by old university...

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/2014 09:11 PM, andrel wrote:
> Some people have been so fed up with such deep linking that they have
> changed the content to goatse.

Or worse...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 29/01/2014 09:11 PM, andrel wrote:
> > Some people have been so fed up with such deep linking that they have
> > changed the content to goatse.

> Or worse...

There's something worse? I honestly don't want to know.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> On 29/01/2014 09:11 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> Some people have been so fed up with such deep linking that they have
>>> changed the content to goatse.
>
>> Or worse...
>
> There's something worse? I honestly don't want to know.
>
Your mileage may vary, but personally, I find gore is much worse than 
goatse.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see the appeal of goatse, tubgirl, et al. 
but people blown to bits or cut up in pieces are not something I want to 
see when browsing an otherwise inoffensive website.
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message