Peter G. Miller
OurBroker®

The letter from the Internet entreprenuer invited me to link my site with his, an offer not to be ignored since I believe that mutual linking is a useful way to build online traffic.

But when I looked at the other site, my interest disappeared. What I saw was that my site had been "framed" and not "linked," a distinction likely to enrage a growing number of site owners.

When we look at a piece of fee-simple real estate we know that owners have certain rights -- they can build on the property, finance it as they like, sell it, sell a part of it, etc. The same is also true of web sites. A web site is property -- "intellectual property" -- and thus owners also have rights.

In general, a "link" can be seen as an electronic connection between one site and another. If you link to Smith's home page it's likely that no one will care and that Smith, even if desired, cannot prevent such a link. This is the equivalent of someone standing on the street and pointing to your house.

But what if the link does not go to the Smith home page, what if we have an "interior" link?

Now the issue is not so clear. Maybe Smith has a home page counter and by linking directly to an interior page the counter does not record visits to the site made directly to the interior page. The result is that the Smith site seems less active and Smith cannot sell ads as easily because he has less traffic.

The view here is that with certain exceptions -- say a media review of your site, a link to an academic reference for a research paper, a resource cited for purposes of "fair comment," a link created by a non-profit organization, etc. -- the use of interior links requires approval of the site owner.

"Frames" present a different issue. If the Smith site is framed by Jones, it means that the Smith page may appear to be part of the Jones site. But Jones did not write the Smith content, did not do the coding, did not do the research, doesn't own the copyright (title) to the materal, and didn't do prog ramming. In effect, when Smith's work is framed his property is being used by someone else.

Now it may be that Smith is okay with framing and sees it as a useful way to build traffic and site value. But many Smiths vehemently disagree and do not want their material framed.

Bruce P. Keller, an attorney representing several news organizations, perhaps explained it best when he wrote that a site that frames "'reaps' where it does not 'sow.'" (See: "Online Publishers Wage a Battle Over Frame and Fortune," The Washington Post, February 11, 1997)

No less important, not only can framing create copyright questions, trademark issues can also arise.

Trademarks are another form of intellectual property, the exclusive right to use certain terms and art. When a framed page includes a trademark, or when a URL includes a trademark, site owners who frame face additional liabilities. Seen the other way, trademarking names and art is a good way to protect online materials.

But suppose Broker Johnson frames a photo of a listing held by Broker Hewitt. Will a visitor know to contact Hewitt? What if Johnson copies the listing, posts it on his site, and the listing expires?

Miller's rules in these matters are fairly plain:

• Links to home pages are fine.
• Without permission of the site owner, links to interior pages are generally not acceptable, depending on the facts and circumstances.
• Links to anything on a government site are fine -- government material is not copyrighted and you paid for it.
• Frames without permission are verbotten.

To subscribe to the DIRT news group, go to the home page and follow the enrollment directions.

Published: November 17, 1998

Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws.

Editor's Note: This article reflects the opinions of Peter Miller only and not necessarily the views of this or any other publication, organization or Website owner.