Subject: Re: "Permission to Point?" From: ballardr@ix.netcom.com (Rexford Ernest Ballard) Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 23:25:55 -0700

You wrote: 
>
>Does anyone have any words of wisdom regarding "permission to point" at a
>URL? Let's say that I am doing a newletter on the Internet industry.
There are certain guidlines I proposed about a year ago.

In general, referring to an entire document by referring to a URL is pretty
reasonable.  It is important to remember that the .htaccess file can be used to 
block out or enable certain viewers.  If you intend to use a long-term link, it 
is a good idea to let the owning webmaster know that you wish to retain it.

When clipping of artwork, it is a good idea to create a link or dedicate a 
corner of an ISM to a link back to the original author and publisher.

Both links and artwork should be copyrighted with notices accessible via link or 
context sensitive map.  Think of it as the "Signature".  If the "linked" page, 
contains advertising, that advertizing link should also be preserved.

With regard to your own content, it is a good idea to have a "copyright link" at 
the bottom of the page, which points back to a link that describes the terms of 
your license.

If you are charging "by the drink", you should describe the use of that report.

>  In one
>section, I want to show the stock price history of Microsoft.  I do a search
>of the various investment services and find a site that provides a
>day-by-day volume and price graph of Microsoft.  Instead of publishing the
>actual chart, I provide a link directly to the subject page.

There are a few issues.  Stock Reports are often sold "by the drink" or limited 
to a number of accesses.  Just because you can read a document, doesn't mean 
that your boss or your subordinates can read it.  They may just end up with a 
large "Error 401".  Worse, you may be link in a report that costs $1.50/hit,
not exactly something you want to have browsed by several thousand employees
and perspective customers.

>I am not copying material.  I am providing a URL that the might very well
>show up should one of my clients do a search with one of the many search
>engines.  The "owner" of the site does not require registration and makes
>the information available to anyone visiting the site.  What are my
>obligations with respect to this "use?"

Using the entire link is reasonable.  Taking "clips" or pulling 10 or 12 images 
for use on your CGI form is probably not a bright idea, especially if there is 
CGI determined advertising.

>Have there been any legal decisions on this subject?

There is a "court" of a higher level.  The internet is notorious for its ability 
to pass 2 way traffic.  If you start linking artwork which the original 
publisher paid $300/page to produce with nothing but the image link, there is a 
popular practice of blocking the link, changing the link to an inappropriate 
picture.  If your investor/customer links to your page and gets a picture of
"highlights of the Spanish Inquisition" instead of the Annual report, you are 
going to look a bit silly.

One of the advantages of running your own server, vs farming out to a "home page 
vendor" is that you can identify "heavy hitters" and either start charging, or
block them out.

>Ward Bell
>Obsidian Communications
>Minneapolis, Mn

    Rex Ballard
    Director of Distribution
    Standard & Poor's/ McGraw-Hill
    Opinions expressed are the author's own.

    http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard



------------------------------