If a link is adequately labelled (to credit the owner of copyright and
forewarn the user as to context) and the link points to a 'page' as the
lowest unit of 'content currency' (i.e., the 'page' as crafted by the site
producers with or without frames) then I'd argue that asking for the link
to be removed is unjustified.
Clearly, the issue is one of context and whether shift of context infinges
copyright. What happens if best efforts are made to clarify context? This
is surely an issue of reference; implicitly contextualised to the source of
the link/ reference rather than the destination.
To me, this reduces down to whether owners have a right to dictate entry
points to their web-site(s) i.e., is this really a copyright issue?
However, moral rights should still be respected (whether commercial entity
or not) - on this basis I agree with Paul Chimicz with respect to 'not
allowed by the scope of their consent and that is enough'.
In the case of the LU, perhaps agreement could be achieved if a link was
placed both to the main page of the site and to the page itself immediately
after in brackets?? This would leave you in a strong position to negtiate.
Afterall, if you simply put a link to the home-page, why refer them there
at all? Certainly little benefit for the user.
Stephen...
_____________________________________________________
Stephen Emmott - Web Editor
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/
-----------------------------------------------------
Press & Public Relations Office,
rm 4.14, Waterloo Bridge House,
57 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8WA
-----------------------------------------------------
tel: +44 (0) 171 872 3342; fax: +44 (0) 171 872 0214
-----------------------------------------------------
.gamut - Web Editors' forum:
http://www.gold.ac.uk/gamut/
_____________________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|