Re: [CNI-COPYRIGHT] Re: Framing in a.k.a. Branding outside Web Resources

ditto what everyone said so far...my question is why someone hasn't taken Microsoft to task for this practice. click any link sent to you in a hotmail message and you go to the site with a hotmail frame at the top, kindly letting you know that you are visiting a site outside of hotmail. just in case this is the first link you have ever clicked on the internet... sure there is a way to remove the frame, sure they could argue it is done as a courtesy to their users and some might even find it convenient to get back to their hotmail inbox...but it is poor design (you can't copy and paste the url to the site until you remove the box) and it seems to me to be an intellectual property violation.

since when does a "disclaimer" make it okay?

Gay Gilmore
Recipezaar: Where the Recipes Are
http://www.recipezaar.com

On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 08:42 PM, Edward Barrow wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, April 02, 2003 2:29 PM, Smith, Robert
> [SMTP:smithre[_at_]mail.ctsfw.edu] wrote:
>> Dear Friends:
>>
>> Our IT department is doing a remake of our website and is
>> pushing to "frame in" outside resources. What they propose to
>> do is this:
>>
>> When a person visits one of our web pages and selects a link
>> pointing to an online resource, (subscription database, encyclopedia,
>> open edoc, someone's website, etc.) our server will create a web page
>> with our masthead and menus, request the page from the outside source,
>> and put the outside resource on it. The effect is that our logo and
>> banners appear to be a part of the outside resource.
>>
>> My sources (maybe this list is one, but my memory is fuzzy) seem to
>> suggest that this is frowned upon and that a number of such resources
>> have
>> considered suing such sites for copyright infringement. I'm arguing
>> that
>> we should not frame in, therefore, because it creates ill will and may
>> be
>> illegal (not something a seminary likes to do...)
>>
>> The tech is arguing that the return path is important because we might
>> loose
>> our users if this is not done and that pop up windows are annoying. He
>> argues that if sites do not explicitly say we shouldn't do it, that we
>> don't have
>> to. (which is ironic, since our site has anti-framing code on it)
>>
>> Does anyone have any concrete evidence that I am correct as I try to
>> convince the head-tech?
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> Rev. Robert E. Smith
>> Electronic Resources Librarian
>> Concordia Theological Seminary
>> Fort Wayne, Indiana
>> "Translatio traditio est."
>>
>>
>
>
> On the legal side, I would not dream of trying to add to Prof.
> Ochoa's
> comprehensive reply.
>
> But this would certainly be considered very bad web-design practice,
> and
> by many people to be unethical. As well as the branding issues, it may
> raise questions of accessibility, for example.
>
> You could try posting the same question on a relevant technical
> discussion
> list, such as one of the ones operated by the W3C - or suggesting that
> your
> technical person did so, but be prepared for a less-than-temperate
> response....
>
> Edward Barrow
> New Media Copyright Consultant
> http://www.copyweb.co.uk/
> ***Important: see http://www.copyweb.co.uk/email.htm for information
> about the legal status of this email ***
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Vist the e-mail list web archive at
> <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 05 2003 - 04:44:23 GMT