Re: URIs, deep linking, framing, adapting and related concerns

I like very much this writing.

I personally find the mission of the W3C might be to explicit the "normal expectation of use" as well as the wordings which both are indeed legally relevant.

From this text, any URL that is given in my browser history, be it with clicks offered by the website or not, is a URL that should be considered as shareable. I think this is safe and correct.


Le 30 déc. 2010 à 00:39, Larry Masinter a écrit :

> I’ve been trying to catch up on this thread, which I passed over earlier…
> I think the discussion we had at the last TAG conference call led me to the position that
> what we could best do, as the TAG and in the W3C, is establish what the industry
> considers to be the convention….
> Conventionally, if you put up a page with a URL that you can navigate to by
> clicking on “A”-style hrefs, it is expected to be reasonable for someone to
> save such a link, mail it to someone else, or link to it on their web site.
> Conventionally, someone discovering such a link should not expect to check
> any “terms and conditions” to discover if it is OK for them to use it.
> Conventionally, however, someone making a web site that offers images
> for use in its own compound documents (for use in transclusion)  does not
> expect others to point to or cite those resources directly; a resource mounted
> for viewing stand-alone is different from one mounted for viewing only
> within the site’s own context.  Perhaps the content needs context,
> does not stand alone, or perhaps it is merely because the cost of mounting
> the image/script/resource/style-sheet is funded by whatever is behind
> the context, and taking the resource out of context does not provide
> a way for cost recovery.
> Unfortunately, just given a URL itself, one cannot reliably determine whether
> the resource located by the URL was intended for direct viewing by linking
> or use in transclusion, although the content-type of the body might give
> some indications for that.
> (Note that this writeup does not discuss copyright, legality, rights, or what
> is or isn’t infringing, although  the “normal expectation for use” might bear
> on those topics. My feeling is that W3C can and should come up with a
> clear position about what is ‘normal expectation for use’, but should stay
> away from trying to propose what should or shouldn’t be legal in any
> jurisdiction.)
> Larry
> --
> From: [] On Behalf Of Nick Gall
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 11:08 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: URIs, deep linking, framing, adapting and related concerns
> Nick Gall
> Phone: +1.781.608.5871
> Twitter: ironick
> AOL IM: Nicholas Gall
> Yahoo IM: nick_gall_1117
> MSN IM: (same as email)
> Google Talk: (same as email)
> Email: nick.gall AT-SIGN gmail DOT com
> Weblog:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan Rees <> wrote:
> ...This seems very similar to your example #1 of image
> inclusion. If so a court may very well one day find <img> links to
> unlicensed material to be infringing.
> The US Ninth Circuit  has already decided the issue of inline linking: "While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act...does not protect a copyright holder against [such] acts..." See for more details.
> I'm not sure the other circuits or SCOTUS will agree with the ruling, but it is out there.
> Wikipedia has some great resources collected around the issues of deep linking and inline linking:
> Speaking as a former intellectual property litigator, I'd say that when you strip away all the technological details, the fundamental issue comes down to "fair use". So if the W3C, or anyone else, wants to take a position of the copyright aspects of various kinds of hyperlinking (whether inline or not), it should be couched in the four factor framework of US fair use law. See .
> -- Nick

Received on Wednesday, 29 December 2010 23:52:25 UTC