Talk:Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing

Belgium
"Belgian Association of Newspaper Editors v. Google

In September 2006 the Belgian Association of Newspaper Editors sued Google and obtained an injunctive order from the Belgian Court of First Instance that Google must stop deep linking to Belgian newspapers without paying royalties, or else pay a fine of €1 million daily.[9] Many newspaper columns were critical of the Belgian newspapers' position.[10] "

This is not true, 11 years ago I have corrected this already and included the original verdict. Look at it and correct it, Incredible that such false information is still winning from facts. Google was not convicted for hyperlinking, not even close. Read the official verdict. Google was convicted because they published text from the articles and used this in their news portal. That is one of the reasons they changed the news section from portal to pure search engine. All can be read in the original verdict of the court (in French).

Merger of linking and web tech
I think that the suggested merger is a bad idea because there are other aspects of web technolgy that implicate copyright law. The article would be too big. The one on linking is already long enough. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * New intro. by Stevertigo

I think the edits by Stevertigo are well intended but in need of considerable revision. Much in them is helpful, but other parts are counterproductive and in some cases, with due respect, ill-informed. I will try to synthesize the new and old material in edits over the next several days, and would be pleased to discuss the details with Stevertigo or anyone else. Much of the new material is simply unrelated to linking or its copyright law aspects. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider your edits to be well intended as well, but likewise in need of considerable revision, at least with regard to particular terms used. "Portions of Web sites" is inaccurate and unusable language in every and all contexts, except apparently in the law. I agree that some of the overly general treatment belongs elsewhere, but indeed if there are as many in depth CR/IP and Internet treatments as there appear to be in the related categories, some serious integration and reconceptualiztion is also due. A very large topic box is under way. Regards, -Stevertigo 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The new topic box is here... Template:Computing law. Edit away. -Stevertigo 22:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Overview section
The section "Overview" is inappropriate in my opinion. The overview of the article should be provided in the lead section, see Lead section. In addition (to follow up on an email from PraeceptorIP to me), it seems that the three last paragraphs of the section indeed relate to downloading, not linking or framing. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with the preceding comments. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Citedby Swedish court (Stockholms tingsrätt)
This article has recently (2010-06-11) been cited by Stockholms tingsrätt, a Swedish first-instance court:

"Tingsrätten saknar praktisk möjlighet att göra en komparativ studie avseende rättstillämpningen i olika länder i aktuellt hänseende, men konstaterar att de rättsprocesser som initierats på olika håll i världen vanligen verkar ha avsett djuplänkning och s.k. framing (för en allmänt hållen genomgång, se Wikipedia, Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing)" Ulner (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Even more important then to remind the ECoJ rulings. ;-) Nemo 09:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081119080550/http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/german-court-deep-linking-is-legal to http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/german-court-deep-linking-is-legal
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110401150823/http://www.bechtold.name:80/archive/text/shetland_settlement.htm to http://www.bechtold.name/archive/text/shetland_settlement.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081013025653/http://www.courttv.com:80/archive/legaldocs/cyberlaw/totalnew.html to http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/cyberlaw/totalnew.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/may97/media/media970506.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216074717/http://www.copiepresse.be/copiepresse_google.pdf to http://www.copiepresse.be/copiepresse_google.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Other noteworthy articles
I just came across a couple other cases that might be worth mention


 * Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc. 1999 - settled with injunction: infringing party not to mention any URLs of any websites that infringe on a particular work. (No ordinary linking, no deep linking, but only for one specific work)
 * Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. 2000 - decided in favour of deep linking

--Nanite (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal request of user tiktok videos
I would request you to kindly remove the videos and photos of this user as it's a topic of her concern. After the app is banned I think the user data regarding the app should also be removed 122.161.91.213 (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)