You are forbidden to link to my page!

[MapleDots]

I recently visited a website and for curiosity was reading their TOS and it contained all the usual stuff, trademarks, image rights etc etc.

What struck me funny was that there was a whole paragraph saying that nobody is allowed to link to the website without express written permission from the site. It was quite dramatic and said especially no linking from a public website. What made no sense to me was the fact that this was a financial institution and they should want people to link to them, that would increase business right?

So I would like to discuss the legal status of that statement, here it is edited to remove names.

BOOKMARKING AND LINKING TO OUR WEB SITE You understand that you may create a bookmark in your web browser to the home page. You may not create any link to either the home page or any other of the web site pages without the written approval, including, without limitation, a link on a publicly accessible web site. No person may link to this Site from any web site not owned or sponsored by us without first notifying the us of the intention to create such link and obtaining our written permission. No web site linking to this Site may frame or border this Site with the content of the linking site visible in the same window without our express written permission.

I find it a bit perplexing because it is like saying you cannot write a public business phone number or address on a public forum. So basically if I linked to their site in this forum I would be liable according to their tos.

@jberryhill do you know if this is legal.

Could apple say nobody is allowed to link to a product on our site and discuss it on another site? Could a financial institution which has a public website and is actively soliciting clients make such a rule legit?

If the internet becomes a place where one cannot link to other sites then it would fundamentally break what the world wide web is all about. Its a bunch of connected websites linking to each other.

Am I wrong here?

 

[MapleDots]

If anyone figures out who this is please refrain from posting identifying links etc or I will have to report it to a moderator. I am not posting this to go against the websites TOS as much as I would like to discuss the legality thereof.

 

[NoBS]

Can't see how linking is a problem unless you agree to the TOS. Whatever legal options they have may be nothing in another state, or another country. They are not the world police.

 

[MapleDots]

Can't see how linking is a problem unless you agree to the TOS. Whatever legal options they have may be nothing in another state, or another country. They are not the world police.

I have to make a correction - It is actually the websites terms of use and they are located in the USA.

If I link to them from Canada and have never read their terms of use can they really prevent me from doing this..

Hey, I found a new business website at www.site.com check them out they have good info.

According to them I cannot do this and by mentioning their name on this forum I would be liable.

 

[briguy]

Probably for SEO reasons. The site (webmaster) doesn't want to lose "ranking" due to backlinks from "bad sites"..
Kinda of anal.

 

[mr-x]

Playboy says linking to Playmate archive violates copyright; judge says no way
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...flimsy-copyright-lawsuit-against-boing-boing/

Linking is allowed under fair use. https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-court-linking-not-copyright-infringement

Anal version. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/website-permissions/linking/

 

[NoBS]

It seems too far divergent from any sense of natural/common law so whatever legal effect it could have doesn't bother me.

 

[MapleDots]

Personally I will link if I am so inclined but it does make an interesting argument.

Can anyone really stop free speech, can anyone really stop me from writing an article about a book and naming the author or even making a few quotes? Is a website so different?

 

[JB Lions]

I can understand this part:
"No web site linking to this Site may frame or border this Site with the content of the linking site visible in the same window without our express written permission."

But as far as linking, you can link.

 

[enlytend]

It sounds like they don’t want other sites implying a relationship where there is none.
If this is a major financial institution, bad inbound links won’t hurt them. And anyway these days google generally just ignores links they don’t like.

 

[MapleDots]

I can understand this part:
"No web site linking to this Site may frame or border this Site with the content of the linking site visible in the same window without our express written permission."

But as far as linking, you can link.

I think we would all be in agreement with you on that one because the website is their property and nobody has the right to display their site within a frame with a different address in the browser.

That said if I say.....

I got a great interest rate at www.thisbusiness.com/page101

They state that is not allowed

Saying it on this forum breaks another rule

If you put it on the web it is public domain and it is not like image stealing or anything. I can understand the owner of the image wanting a royalty but can the owner prevent me from linking to his own webpage if I wanted to say on a forum that I really liked that image? So without displaying any part of it and linking only to the webpage but not to the image itself could I be breaking a law?

Same applies to a webpage itself that is not behind a password or something similar.

I cannot say I know the specifics of the law on this one but it sure makes for an interesting conversation.

 

[briguy]

Probably for SEO reasons. The site (webmaster) doesn't want to lose "ranking" due to backlinks from "bad sites"..
Kinda of anal.

It sounds like they don’t want other sites implying a relationship where there is none.
If this is a major financial institution, bad inbound links won’t hurt them. And anyway these days google generally just ignores links they don’t like.

Thanks for clarifying that!

Guess, I have to update my 2015 SEO guide book that I bought on Amazon...

Seriously..been thinking about the "iframe" part..maybe they are worried about their site being put into a iframe as a "phlishing attempt"?

 

[enlytend]

Seriously..been thinking about the "iframe" part..maybe they are worried about their site being put into a iframe as a "phlishing attempt"?

Probably.

 

[Kate]

Just received this: Federal Judge Says Embedding a Tweet Can Be Copyright Infringement
("the logic of the ruling applies to all in-line linking, not just embedding tweets")

 

[Platinums]

OP please share the link