Forum Moderators: not2easy
I've gathered from that thread and my own common sense that its somewhat rude to frame other sites content for the reasons stated in the above thread.
Do you think this may change if the framing was for a different reason?
EG instead of framing with the intention of getting users to click banners etc with the victims site framed, how about framing sites as part of a non profit utility, an example I have seen recently is torrent search by example.com.
[edited by: jatar_k at 4:29 pm (utc) on April 6, 2006]
[edit reason] no urls thanks [/edit]
And please, you can't post links to your sites, as stated in the terms of use.
I tried contacting google but there is no way of successfuly doing that. The only email address I could find was for some business user thing. There is no contact form or anything.
If you're thinking specifically about search engine effects, I don't think there are any. Framing a site won't confuse Google or any other search engine.
From posts I have seen and been a part of it seems the best advice is always go and request the use of the content. However if you get no response then I think you should go ahead and do it anyway if you looking to educate and not to profit.
One point that has been made and I agree with is why frame it and use the bandwidth of another? Why not copy the meat and potatoes of the content you want to provide, give full credit and link back to the original. This way at least you aren't killing someone else's bandwidth and using their content.
A lot of sites have access rules so that frames and hotlinks of files and images won't work to prevent such unwanted use of bandwidth.
One point that has been made and I agree with is why frame it and use the bandwidth of another? Why not copy the meat and potatoes of the content you want to provide, give full credit and link back to the original. This way at least you aren't killing someone else's bandwidth and using their content.
Lack of intent to profit is NOT a license to use other people's protected work. If you disagree, run off a few thousand copies of the latest Harry Potter novel and distribute them for free to needy students - you'll have lawyers swarming around you faster than you can say "pigwidgeon".
Keep in mind, too, that even when you are right, you can still be sued as a form of harassment. If your adversary has deeper pockets, they can still beat you into submission. That's why it ALWAYS makes sense to get permission before using someone else's content. And if you are worried they won't give you permission, then your likelihood of hearing from their lawyer later goes up tenfold.
The OP stated
[quote]that its somewhat rude to frame other sites content for the reasons stated[\quote]
I was pointing out that it is more then just a copyright issue and it is also an issue when it comes to using someone elses bandwidth and that some sites will even take steps to prevent you from doing this.
It is totally related to the OP and I you are WAY off base in saying otherwise. If my post is a troll post IYO then what is yours? Nothing more then a jerk-off comment that's what. Thanks for your input Jomaxx, really productive.
Rodger I know what you are saying about Harry Potter, but if I handed out a copy of the book to my class at school and said we would be studying it as a piece of liturature then the lawyers can circle all they want but nothing they can do. Now sell the students the copies of the book you made and you have problems.
Quit trying to imply I said things that I clearly did not. And even if that is what I said it that would be related to the OP contrary to your saying that it isn't. Still unsure what this tangent you have pulled us off on does have to do with the OP though.
So what great advise did you have to offer on this subject?
[quote] framing a site won't confuse Google or any other search engine. [\quote]
Wrong!
Wrong!Please to explain.
I could care less if you disagree with me, clearly you do, but for you to attack and discredit what I have to say and to suggest I am not even on topic with the thread is just wrong.
My point had nothing to do with the legalities of copying someones work. My post was meant to show that it can be harmful to the orginal author in another manner. (read bandwidth/data transfer charges)
Again totally related to the OP. So thanks for your input but next time try to digest what I am saying before you jump out and call me a troll and accuse me of telling people to copy others works.
In any event they can confuse SE and require action from the webmaster to clarify the situation.
I mean that it won't have any negative consequences for the framed site. It won't lead to canonical problems or duplicate content problems or Google thinking that content from site A is really associated with site B, or anything like that.
I just took offense to the suggestion that I am some type of attention forum trolling whore.
Take a look at my posts that do not appear in the copyright section and you will see that I don't go around just posting IMO stuff. Many people have benefitted from my technical advise, as I have benefitted from others as well.
Hope this puts to rest any hard feelings you seem to harbor towards me and we can post together in harmony from here on in.
Pentascape ... listen to Rogerd, he knows what he is talking about!
guys, chill out!
thanks for all the different ideas and opinions on this topic, i think i'm still going to go ahead with the project (involving the framing) and just post a clear notice that the framed content is not mine, copyright of the owner and i'd be happy to remove their link at any time.
Good luck with your endevor. I have suggested many times on this site that putting up a disclaimer like this:
"if you don't like me using your content I will take it down"
Is ok and I still have scars over the responses I got for suggesting it.
US Copyright law says that you have to explcitly request the use of works not the other way around where the copyright holder request you to not violate their copyright.
Although a ruling in Google's favor suggests otherwise. In the ruling it basically says that since the copyright holder has a recourse and can remove copyrighted content from appearing on Google by asking it to not crawl pages that contian copyrighted content and by requesting them to remove works already indexed.
I see this as the court saying "if you give the copyright holder a way to remove the copyrighted material then it is ok"
Others strongly disagree and that is opposite to what the US copyright law says... but that was the courts ruling and that is why Google can have copyrighted content without concerns of being sued.
If you want to use something created by someone else, ASK FIRST. If he says YES go ahead. If he says NO or DOES NOT REPLY, do not assume that it is a yes. It is always a NO.
It's people like you that makes the Web such a bad place.
What is so difficult in asking people's permission before doing something that will hurt them? Are you afraid they will always tell you NO and that you won't be able to get away with your little schemes?
If you knew you were on solid ground, you wouldn't be afraid of asking for their permission.
i think i'm still going to go ahead with the project (involving the framing) and just post a clear notice that the framed content is not mine, copyright of the owner and i'd be happy to remove their link at any time.
Poor decision in my opinion ... but live and learn.
You had better hope its not not my stuff you plan to frame! If you choose not to contact someone to ask permission to use their material, they may opt to use other (rather unpleasant) remedies at their disposal. I would!
If you should see fit not to contact me, there is no way I would contact you! I use a warning specifically stating, "All materials are copyrighted and may not be used on the web without prior written consent."
Seems clear enough to me.
That is an interesting thought. Asking Google for permission to use stuff they didn't have explicit persmission to be using to begin with.
I wonder what would happen if instead of framing the site you want, you frame Google's cached page of that site off the G servers.
