Editing Hyperlink (section)

==Legal issues==
{{Main article|Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing}}

While hyperlinking among webpages is an intrinsic feature of the [[World Wide Web|web]], some websites object to being linked by other websites; some have claimed that linking to them is not allowed without permission.

Contentious in particular are [[deep linking|deep links]], which do not point to a site's [[home page]] or other entry point designated by the site owner, but to content elsewhere, allowing the user to bypass the site's own designated flow, and ''inline links'', which incorporate the content in question into the pages of the linking site, making it seem part of the linking site's own content unless an explicit attribution is added.<ref>See [[Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing#Kelly v. Arriba Soft|''Arriba Soft'' case]]. The Ninth Circuit decision in this case is the first important decision of a US court on linking. In it, the Ninth Circuit held the deep linking by Arriba Soft to images on Kelly's website to be legal under the fair use doctrine.</ref>

In certain [[jurisdiction]]s, it is or has been held that hyperlinks are not merely [[reference]]s or [[citations]], but are devices for copying web pages. In the Netherlands, [[Karin Spaink]] was initially convicted in this way of copyright infringement by linking, although this ruling was overturned in 2003. The courts that advocate this view see the mere [[publication]] of a hyperlink that connects to illegal material to be an illegal act in itself, regardless of whether referencing illegal material is illegal. In 2004, [[Josephine Ho]] was acquitted of 'hyperlinks that corrupt traditional values' in [[Taiwan]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://sex.ncu.edu.tw/animal-love/news/2004Jan-Jun/Wang.pdf |title=The prosecution of Taiwan sexuality researcher and activist Josephine Ho |publisher=Sex.ncu.edu.tw |access-date=2012-10-25 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120208052339/http://sex.ncu.edu.tw/animal-love/news/2004Jan-Jun/Wang.pdf |archive-date=February 8, 2012 }}</ref>

In 2000, [[British Telecom]] sued [[Prodigy (ISP)|Prodigy]], claiming that Prodigy infringed its patent ({{US patent|4873662}}) on web hyperlinks. After [[litigation]], a [[court]] found for Prodigy, ruling that [[British Telecom]]'s patent did not cover web hyperlinks.<ref>[[CNET]] News.com, [https://web.archive.org/web/20030207070416/http://news.com.com/2100-1033-955001.html Hyperlink patent case fails to click]. August 23, 2002.</ref>

In United States ''[[jurisprudence]]'', there is a distinction between the mere act of linking to someone else's website, and linking to content that is illegal (e.g., gambling illegal in the US) or [[copyright infringement|infringing]] (e.g., illegal MP3 copies).<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110629041507/http://www.cybertelecom.org/ip/link.htm Cybertelecom:: Legal to Link?]&nbsp; The ''Internet Archive''. Retrieved June 11, 2012.</ref> Several courts have found that merely linking to someone else's website, even if by bypassing commercial advertising, is not copyright or trademark infringement, regardless of how much someone else might object.<ref>Ford Motor Company v. 2600 Enterprises, 177 F.Supp.2d 661 (EDMi December 20, 2001)</ref><ref>American Civil Liberties Union v. Miller, 977 F.Supp. 1228 (ND Ga. 1997)</ref><ref>Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.Com, Inc., No. 99-07654 (CD Calif. March 27, 2000)</ref> Linking to illegal or infringing content can be sufficiently problematic to give rise to legal liability.<ref>[http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/release10/IntRes.html Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081220211433/http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/release10/IntRes.html |date=2008-12-20 }}, 75 FSupp2d 1290 (D Utah 1999)</ref><ref>Universal City Studios Inc v Reimerdes, 111 FSupp2d 294 (DCNY 2000)</ref><ref>[http://www.linksandlaw.com/decision-161-comcast-illinoi-hightech-elec.pdf Comcast of Illinois X LLC v. Hightech Elec. Inc.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217124715/http://www.linksandlaw.com/decision-161-comcast-illinoi-hightech-elec.pdf |date=2008-12-17 }}, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Decision of July 28, 2004, 03 C 3231</ref> Compare<ref>[http://www.linksandlaw.com/decision-163-perfect-10-pictures-google.pdf Perfect 10 v. Google] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217124705/http://www.linksandlaw.com/decision-163-perfect-10-pictures-google.pdf |date=2008-12-17 }}, Decision of February 21, 2006, Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (CD Cal. 2/21/06), CRI 2006, 76–88 No liability for thumbnail links to infringing content</ref> for a summary of the current status of US copyright law as to hyperlinking, see the discussion regarding [[Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing#State of US law after Arriba Soft and Perfect 10|the ''Arriba Soft'' and ''Perfect 10'' cases]].

Somewhat controversially, [[Vuestar Technologies]] has tried to enforce [[patent]]s applied for by its owner, Ronald Neville Langford,<ref>[http://web20.telecomtv.com/pages/?newsid=43241&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10&view=news TelecomTV – TelecomTV One – News<!-- Bot generated title -->] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081223012806/http://web20.telecomtv.com/pages/?newsid=43241&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10&view=news |date=2008-12-23 }}</ref> around the world relating to search techniques using hyperlinked images to other [[websites]] or web pages.<ref name="inquirer">[https://web.archive.org/web/20090221083137/http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/093/1029093/singapore-firm-owns-pictures All your Interwibble is belong to us], Silvie Barak, [[The Inquirer]], 21 February 2009</ref>