The following is a simple list of rules to follow when linking to other sites from the library’s website. Understand that the law is in a state of constant flux, and so these recommendations present the most conservative posi- tion. Taking a more aggressive position is, of course, a determination each library needs to make on its own. It is a given that by the time this book is published the law will have developed further. However, the following rules would appear to be representative of a safe harbor.
1. Check to see whether the website you are linking to has a statement regarding linking or framing. Some sites post a position on linking and framing, i.e., whether it is allowed and under what circum- stances (noncommercial, to home page only, notice requirement, etc.). If you frame a portion of the site, a fair use analysis should be made consistent with the cases in this chapter, chapter 1, and other precedent.
2. When linking, it is safer to use the name of the linked site than a logo or design to activate the link, since they may be protected by trademark. A logo may look attractive, but it raises issues of trade- mark and dilution.
3. Do not deep-link to commercial sites unless you have permission to do so. If the site is one which the library or its patrons might nor- mally patronize, deep-linking to it might harm the economic inter- ests of that site. However, there is some trend in the courts to disavow the merits of these claims. It may also depend on the number of deep-link hits your link generates; again this would affect the amount of economic harm the deep link causes. When framing, the point is to never portray or present the linked site in a fashion that distorts the original site in any way, as could be done, for example, by obscuring advertising on a commercial site, framing only portions of a site, or deep-linking past membership information on an organizational site. Even so, some site owners believe that entry to their web space must always be via the home page. Likewise, make sure to identify the use of any framing tech- nology that copies or distorts the original source of the material.
4. It might be prudent to make clear to your site’s viewers that links are for informational purposes only, and that a provided link is not to be taken by patrons as an endorsement or approval of the linked site or of material on that site, and does not grant the right to do anything other than view material at the linked site. A disclaimer on the library website can serve this function.
Notes
1.Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.,2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4553 (C.D. Cal.
2000) (in-link not a copyright infringement).
2.American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia v. Miller,977 F. Supp. (N.D. Ga. 1998) (state statute regulating linking to commercial sites unconstitutional).
3. David Ensign, Legal Liability for Linking, COPYRIGHT AND NEW MEDIA LAW
NEWSLETTER, vol. 5, no. 4 (2001), at 3; Michael Rustad and Cyrus Daftary, E- BUSINESS LEGALHANDBOOK §4.02[F][1] at 253 (2002) (“Linking, however, may infringe trademarks by implying association between the initial site and the linked site”).
4. Jeffrey R. Kuester and Peter A. Nieves, Hyperlinks: A Form of Protected Expres- sion?NATIONALLAWJOURNAL, Jan. 26, 1998, at C10.
5. Matt Jackson, Linking Copyright to Homepages, 49 FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONS
LAW JOURNAL, 731, 749 (1997) (“Since A merely provides a link to the server where B is located, the author of A should not be liable for direct infringement. A useful analogy is a telephone answering system. One can program a number into speed dial and then call the number to reach a business’s answering machine and listen to their outgoing message. B’s server is like an answering machine. When B’s author places B on the server, it is akin to placing an outgoing message on the answering machine. The URL that designates B’s location is the “phone number”
used to reach the answering machine. When the author of A creates a link to B, she has essentially put B’s phone number (the URL) into a speed dial memory.
When the user selects the link, the user’s Web browser “calls” B’s server. B’s answering machine (the server) then transmits the outgoing message (B) to the user’s Web browser for the user to view. The crucial point is that A does not control the distributionof B. If B’s author no longer wants to distributeB, she can take the document off the server or restrict access with encryption or passwords.
So even if a copy of B has been distributed, the distributionis being made by the author of B, not A.”) (emphases added). But see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,280 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2002), where the court concluded that a frame link of a copy- right owner’s photographs posted on a website by another website violated the owner’s exclusive right of display.
6. I. Trotter Hardy, The Ancient Doctrine of Trespass to Web Sites, JOURNAL OF
ONLINE LAW, October 1996, article 7 (available in the LEXIS-NEXIS Legnew Library); Mark D. Robbins, Electronic Trespass: An Old Theory in a New Context,COMPUTERLAWYER, July 1998, at 1.
7. Bruce P. Keller, Condemned to Repeat the Past: The Reemergence of Misappropriation and Other Common Law Theories of Protection for Intellectual Property, in LEGAL AND BUSINESS ASPECTS OF THE INTERNET 1997 at 339 (PLI Course Handbook Series no. 217, 1997); Richard Raysman and Peter Brown, Dangerous Liaisons: The Legal Risks of Linking Web Sites, NEW YORK LAW
JOURNAL, April 8, 1997, at 3.
8.Ticketmaster Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,97 Civ. 3055 (C.D. Cal., filed April 28, 1997).
9.eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc.,100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
10.eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc.,100 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2000). See also Jeffrey D. Neuburger and Stefania R. Geraci, Web Site Metabrowsers, NATIONALLAWJOURNAL, July 24, 2000, at B9.
11.eBay, Inc.,100 F. Supp. 2d at 1067 (footnote omitted).
12.eBay, Inc.,100 F. Supp. 2d at 1067.
13. Troy Wolverton, EBay, Bidder’s Edge End Legal Dispute, CNET News.com, March 1, 2001, available athttp://news.cnet.com (visited July 8, 2001).
14. Barry J. Brett and Gilbert C. Hoover IV, Exploring the Brave New World of Internet Litigation, NEWYORKLAWJOURNAL, Aug. 29, 2000, at 1.
15.Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.,2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12987 (C.D. Cal.
2000).
16.Ticketmaster Corp.,2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12987 at *17.
17.Ticketmaster Corp.,2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12987 at *17–18.
18.Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,77 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1120–1121 (C.D. Cal. 1999).
19.Washington Post v. TotalNews,97-1190 (PLK), Order of Dismissal, athttp://legal.
web.aol.com/decisions/dlip/washorde.html (visited July 8, 2001).
20.Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,280 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
21. Richard Raysman and Peter Brown, Recent Linking Issues, NEW YORK LAW
JOURNAL, Feb. 8, 2000, at 3.
22. See, e.g., AMERICANBARASSOCIATION, Section of Business Law: Committee of the Law of Commerce in Cyberspace: Subcommittee on Interactive Services, in WEB- LINKING AGREEMENTS: CONTRACTING STRATEGIES AND MODELPROVISIONS(1997) for sample language to use in link agreements.
23.National Association of Recording Merchandisers, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America, No. 0CV-164 (EGS) (D.D.C., Jan. 31, 2000) (complaint alleges that Sony’s prac- tice of linking from its site to a Sony-controlled website that sells Sony music, without revealing to website visitors that both sites are controlled by Sony, consti- tutes unfair competition).
24. 15 U.S.C. §§1114(1) and 1125(a)(1)(A) (2000).
25. 15 U.S.C. §1125(c) (2000).
26. Federal trademark registration 73-668814.
27. Federal trademark registration 26-900103.
28. F. Lawrence Street, LAW OF THEINTERNET§4-2(d), at 380 (2000); Dratler, 2 INTEL-
LECTUALPROPERTYLAW§10.03, at 10-42.
29.Original Appalachian Art Works, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.,642 F. Supp.
1031 (N.D. Ga. 1986).
30.CMG World Wide, Inc. v. American Legends,49 D 109607 (D. Ind., filed July 22, 1996).
31.Lyons Partnership v. Giannoulas,179 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 1999).
32. Jay Dratler Jr., 2 INTELLECTUALPROPERTYLAW: COMMERCIAL, CREATIVE ANDINDUS-
TRIALPROPERTY§10.03[2], at 10-56 (2000).
33.Quality Inns Int’l, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp.,695 F. Supp. 198 (D. Md. 1988).
34.McDonald’s Corp. v. McBagel’s Inc.,649 F. Supp. 1268 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
35. Kent D. Stuckey, INTERNET ANDONLINELAW§7.03[1], at 7-49 (2000).
36. Pub. L. No. 104-98, 109 Stat. 985.
37. Theodore C. Max, Dilution Act May Limit Commercial Parodies,NATIONALLAW
JOURNAL, May 20, 1996, at C13.
38. Stuart I. Graff, Could Mark Owners Sue Media for Generic Use?NATIONALLAW
JOURNAL, Oct. 19, 1998, at C6.
39. 15 U.S.C. §1125(c)(4)(B) (2000).
40. Max, Dilution Act, C13.
41.L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc.,811 F.2d 26, 31 (1st Cir. 1987) (parody of a well-known merchandiser’s trademark in an adult magazine was permissible because it was artistic in nature and therefore did not constitute commercial speech);Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd.,828 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir.
1987) (no likelihood of dilution for the use of “Lardasche” in a competing manu- facturer’s sale of large-size women’s jeans; parody tends to increase public identi- fication of a plaintiff’s mark with the plaintiff, not weaken it);Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Farber, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (no trademark infringement when a website called “Bally’s Sucks” used a trademark name in crit- icizing the health club chain, nor was there tarnishment (dilution) because of this name “link” between the sites).
42. David Bernstein and Thomas H. Prochnow, Defense to Infringement: When the First Amendment Protects Trademark Parodies,NATIONALLAWJOURNAL, August 1998, at 1.
43. 15 U.S.C. §1125(c)(4) (2000).
44.Lyons Partnership v. Giannoulas,179 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 1999) (baseball mascot
“The Chicken’s” assault of the Barney character in his act was a parody).
45. Robert W. Erb and Harold Traub, To Some Big Names, Commercial Parody Is No Laughing Matter, NATIONALLAWJOURNAL, Jan. 24, 1993, at S5.
46. 15 U.S.C. §1115(b)(4) (2000).
47. A travel agency, federal trademark registration 74-651170; a monthly book cata- log, federal trademark registration 73-751642.
48.Richards v. Cable News Network, Inc.,15 F. Supp. 2d 683 (D. Or. 1998) (although the plaintiff continued to hold the trademark rights in the phrase “world beat” for prerecorded reggae music, the plaintiff could not preclude CNN’s use of the term in its generic sense in connection with CNN’s television show or website).
49. See New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing,971 F.2d 302, 308 (9th Cir. 1991).
50. Federal trademark registration 73-034891.
51. Jay Dratler Jr., 2 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW: COMMERCIAL, CREATIVE AND
INDUSTRIALPROPERTY§10.03[2], at 10-56 (2000).
52. David M. Kelly and Jonathan M. Gelchinsky, “No Fair! Stop Using My Marks”:
A Look at Trademarks and the Fair-Use Defense on the Internet, INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTYTODAY, July 1999, at 16.
53. Fair use test as articulated in New Kids on the Block, 971 F.2d at 308.
54. Michael Rustad and Cyrus Daftary, E-BUSINESS LEGAL HANDBOOK 1174 (2002) (“Metatags are HTML tags which provide information that describes the content of the web pages a user will be viewing . . . Many search engines have now incor- porated reading metatags as part of the indexing results”).
55.Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
56. Mark D. Robbins, The Emerging Law of Web Sites: Trademarks in Metatags, INTELLECTUALPROPERTYSTRATEGIST, July 1999, at 1.
57. For a detailed discussion of the ICAAN and the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, see Michael Rustad and Cyrus Daftary, E-BUSINESS LEGAL HANDBOOK
§4.03[K] at 317–351 (2002).
58. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, at http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm (visited July 7, 2001).
59. The Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act amends section 43 of the Lan- ham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125, by adding a subsection (d).
60. 15 U.S.C. §43(d)(1)(A)(i).
61. 15 U.S.C. §43(d)(1)(A)(ii).
62. The most famous dealer in domain name futures is Dennis Toeppen; see Pana- vision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998).
63. RESTATEMENT(SECOND) OFTORTS§652A (1976).
64. For a more detailed discussion of privacy and publicity rights in a library setting, see Tomas Lipinski, Tort Theory in Library, Museum, and Archive Collections, Materials, Exhibits, and Displays: Rights of Privacy and Publicity in Personal Information and Persona, in LIBRARIES, MUSEUMS, ANDARCHIVES: LEGALISSUES AND
ETHICAL CHALLENGES IN THENEWINFORMATION ERA47 (Tomas A. Lipinski ed., 2002); and Legal Issues Involved in the Privacy Rights of Patrons, in LIBRARIES, MUSEUMS, ANDARCHIVES95.
65. CAL. CIV. CODE§3344.1 (2001).
66.A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,239 F.3d 1004, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001), citing Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt, Inc.,443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971).
67. A&M Records, Inc.,239 F.3d at 1022, quoting Gershwinat 1162.
68.Marobie-F v. National Association of Firefighter Equipment Distributors,983 F.
Supp. 1167 (N.D. Ill. 1997); 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1022 (N.D. Ill. July 28, 2000).
See also Kelly v. Arriba Soft. Corp.,280 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
69.Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.,2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12987 (C.D. Cal.
2000).
70.Fred Wehrenberg Circuit of Theatres, Inc. v. Moviefone, Inc.,73 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (E.D. Mo. 1999), movie listings not “hot news” under Motorolastandard (high cost, time-sensitive, commercial free-riding, parties in direct competition, reduce
incentive to collect, i.e., missing the incentive element), see NBA v. Motorola,105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997); Pollstar v. Gigmania, Ltd.,2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21035 (E.D. Cal. 2000) (court “declines to decide this issue at the present time” but observes that the “claim was pled with sufficiency as a ‘hot news’ claim”).
71. For a comprehensive global perspective, see The Link Controversy Pageby Stefan Bechtold athttp://www.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~s-bes1/lcp.html (visited July 3, 2001).
72.SeeDan Wallach, Dilbert Page Hack Archives, athttp://www.cs.rice.edu/~dwallach/
dilbert (visited July 3, 2001). For United Media’s current policy concerning re- prints of Dilbert comics, see http://www.unitedmedia.com/uminfo/um_faq.html (visited June 24, 2001).
73.Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,77 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1119 (C.D. Cal. 1999).
74.Kelly,77 F. Supp. 2d at 1119.
75.Kelly,77 F. Supp. 2d at 1120.
76.Kelly,77 F. Supp. 2d at 1120.
77.Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.,2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12987 at 17 (C.D.
Cal. 2000) (“While TM sees some detriment in T.Com’s operation (possibly in the loss of advertising revenue), there is also a beneficial effect in the referral of cus- tomers looking for tickets to TM events directly to TM”).
78.Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,118 F.3d 199 (4th Cir.
1999).
79.Hotaling,118 F.3d at 203.
80.Hotaling,118 F.3d at 203.
81. 17 U.S.C. §507(b) (2000).
82.Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc.,443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971).
83. See Bernstein v. JC Penney, Inc.,1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19048. The suit was based on a photographer’s claim (Bernstein) that a cosmetic company and retailer (JC Penney) promoted its perfume on the JC Penney site, endorsed by a celebrity. The company site linked to a site operated by an Internet company which in turn linked to other websites which contained the infringing photographs. The case never reached final resolution, suggesting that the “contributory infringement” theory may be a tough one for plaintiffs to win in this situation.
84.Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.,75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (Dist. Utah 1999).
85. Intellectual Reserve, Inc.,75 F. Supp. 2d at 1294 (citing Marobie-F v. National Association of Firefighter Equipment Distributors, among others).
86. Richard Raysman and Peter Brown, Recent Linking Issues, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, Feb. 8, 2000, at 3.
87.Intellectual Reserve, Inc.,75 F. Supp. 2d at 1295.
88.Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes,82 F. Supp. 2d 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); 111 F.
Supp. 2d 294, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (permanent injunction), aff’d sub. nom. Uni- versal Studios, Inc. v. Corley,273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).
89.Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes,111 F. Supp. 2d at 325 (permanent injunc- tion),aff’d sub. nom. Universal Studios, Inc. v. Corley,273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).
90.Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes,111 F. Supp. 2d at 325 (permanent injunc- tion), aff’d sub. nom. Universal Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir.
2001).
91.Universal Studios, Inc. v. Corley,273 F.3d 429, 453 (2d Cir. 2001).
92.Universal Studios, Inc. v. Corley,273 F.3d at 453.
93.Universal Studios, Inc. v. Corley,273 F.3d at 459.
94.Religious Technology Center v. DataWeb B.V., No. 96/1048 (Dist. Ct. of The Hague, Civil Law Sector, June 9, 1999).
95.Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc.,76 F.3d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1996).
96. John W. Hazard Jr., COPYRIGHTLAW INBUSINESS ANDPRACTICE¶7.08, at 7-72–75 (2000).
97.Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph v. Associated Telephone Directory,756 F.2d 801 (1985).
98.Columbia Pictures Industries v. Redd Horne, Inc.,749 F.2d 154 (3d Cir. 1984).
99. W. Page Keeton et al., PROSSER ANDKEETON ON THELAW OFTORTS117 (5th ed.
1984).
100. F. Lawrence Street, LAW OF THEINTERNET§6-2(b), at 625 (2000).
101. James M. Talbott, NEW MEDIA: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, ENTERTAINMENT AND
TECHNOLOGYLAW§10.4, at 10-4 (1999); Kent D. Stuckey, INTERNET ANDONLINE
LAW, §2.03[3], at 2-33 (2000).
102. Cynthia L. Counts and C. Amanda Martin, Libel in Cyberspace: A Framework for Addressing Liability and Jurisdictional Issues in This New Frontier,59 ALBANY LAWREVIEW1083 (1996); Talbott, NEWMEDIA§10.15.
103. A more thorough discussion of these concepts is found in Tomas A. Lipinski, Elizabeth Buchanan, and Johannes J. Britz, Sticks and Stones and Words That Harm—Liability vs. Responsibility: Section 230 and Defamatory Speech in Cyberspace, ETHICS ANDINFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY, Fall 2002 (forthcoming).
104. Brenda Sandburg, Hyperlink Blast Sparks a Libel Suit, NATIONALLAWJOURNAL, Feb. 21, 2000, at A4.
105.MacFadden v. Anthony, 117 N.Y.S.2d 520 (Sup. 1952).
106. RESTATEMENT(SECOND) OFTORTS§581, comment c, illustration 3 (1977).
107. 47 U.S.C. §230.
108.Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997); Blumenthal v.
Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.C. 1998); Ben Ezra, Weinstein & Co. v. America Online, Inc., 206 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 2000), cert denied 531 U.S. 824 (2000);
Does v. Franco Productions, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8645 (N.D. Ill. 2000); Stoner v. eBay, Inc., 56 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1852 (2000); Doe v. America Online, Inc., 783 So. 2d 1010 (2001).
109. See Barrett v. Clark, 2001 WL 881259 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2001) (unpublished).
124
! 3
Internet Access Restrictions and the Law
Q1 What guidance does my library have to ensure patrons’ rights to infor- mation on the Internet?
Q2 Can libraries or librarians be criminally liable for having obscene, inde- cent, or controversial materials in their collections?
Q3 Do patrons have a right to legal materials that are inappropriate?
Q4 Do children have the same rights as adults to materials?
Q5 Who determines whether materials on the Internet are legal or illegal?
Q6 Can you give examples of materials that have been judged obscene?
Q7 Do patrons have a right to unfiltered Internet access in private school libraries or other private libraries?
Q8 Does the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights guarantee access for library patrons in any type of library?
Q9 May parents put restrictions on their children’s access to the Internet at a public library?
Types of Internet Access Restrictions
Q10 Is it legal to have the librarian determine appropriate sites, e.g., use a
“tap on the shoulder” policy?