Forum Moderators: phranque
Oops maybe I should amend that: I mean for things like linking to news articles and such, not a whole site that consists of other people's sites.
someone did do this once, the site appeared in a Frame with a pile of links on the top and a bunch of ads on the left. This was not how the site was intended to be viewed (no ads at all on the site), I contacted the webmaster and they eventually removed the link.
I would hazard a guess that if you have a Frame that displays copyrighted content so that it "appears" to be on your site, you may run into someone who does not appreciate this.
I would hazard a guess that if you have a Frame that displays copyrighted content so that it "appears" to be on your site, you may run into someone who does not appreciate this.
Of course.
The reason I'm asking is because the site I'm working on is a sort of link aggregator and I'm struggling with the decision about having all external links open in a new window or not. So I thought maybe the thing to do would be to just frame the target site with the option to "go back" or "turn off the frame" (a la About.com).
Most news sites have RSS syndication feeds which are perfect for this kind of thing, along with clear guidelines. That is a much better way of using another site's content and building it into your site - legally and more professionnaly.
Also, from a user's point of view, the frames idea is unintuitive. Believe me, the most well-known (and well-used) browser function is the "Back" button - it the person wants to get back to your page, they will do so. Better to trust them rather than trapping them in your frameset for the rest of their session.
I would seriously discourage you from framing other sites. I see it as an equivalent to bandwidth-stealing of images on someone else's server.
If people have the ability to make their site "break out of frames" then wouldn't they do that if they didn't want their site framed (analogous to having to take positive action to prevent a spider from spidering your site).
If people have the ability to make their site "break out of frames" then wouldn't they do that if they didn't want their site framed
Firstly, a JS solution only works when Javascript is enabled, so it's not a perfect solution. Secondly, do you feel image hotlinking is OK unless the site has enabled a block? Same for copying the entire site and layout, because, well, they were offering it for download without a password?
Just because you can doesn't mean that you should.
IMHO that line of thought is very wrong in so many ways. Eg. because i've omitted to write that my stuff can't be copied, does that give everyone permission to do so?
>> frames
There's pretty strong views on this. I've thought about doing this for a site as well, but ended up choosing not to, for these reasons:
1) The user knows about the back button
2) Frames make the visible area of the target site smaller,
3) Frames sometimes ruin navigation completely on target site
4) Frameset makes URL in address bar of target site invisible
5) Some sites will break out, others will not, so user experience is outside my control
6) For those that break out the browser back button is ruined, as it will try to reload the frameset
7) As a user, i personally find it annoying when i'm forced to "open frame in new window" in stead of browsing naturally
If you choose to do so, i would personally prefer that the user is made clearly aware that the content is from/on another site, ie. an "about.com" type visible framing.
If you want your site to stay visible, i would consider opening in a new window in stead. That's a lot more user-friendly than frames, and also a lot more friendly to the target sites.
Firstly, a JS solution only works when Javascript is enabled, so it's not a perfect solution. Secondly, do you feel image hotlinking is OK unless the site has enabled a block?
Personally? I try to avoid it. Legally? It's 100% legal. It happens to me all the time; I deal with it. In fact, I found a way to increase my *page* traffic because of people hotlinking to my pics, audio, and video.
Same for copying the entire site and layout, because, well, they were offering it for download without a password?
I'd have no problem copying someone else's site. I've never found myself in a situation where I might want to, but if I had to, I would.
Just because you can doesn't mean that you should.
I agree. But we're not all playing by the same rules.
If you choose to do so, i would personally prefer that the user is made clearly aware that the content is from/on another site, ie. an "about.com" type visible framing.
Well, I probably won't frame other sites.
Now I'm wondering if I should make all external links open in a new window or if I should have the first link open in the same window and another (a small button, perhaps) cause the link to open in a new window. Obviously, I don't want people getting too far away from my site.
if I should have the first link open in the same window and another (a small button, perhaps) cause the link to open in a new window.
I like that method personally - kind of like how the "Active Post List" page is done here, or on the Yahoo SERPS. As I said, users love the Back button, but giving them the option to open in a new window is great too.
Hello HughMongus:
Could you elaborate?
1) My images are 100% original with me, and I go thru the roof when somebody hotlinks those without credits or a link back. Are you sure hot-linking without credits etc. is 100% legal?
2) Exactly how do to increase your *page* traffic when somebody does hot-link?
I'd really like to know more about that. So far, all I've done is switch images, (lots of fun) adjusting my html to point to the original ones. Any help appreciated. -Larry
2) Exactly how do to increase your *page* traffic when somebody does hot-link?I'd really like to know more about that. So far, all I've done is switch images, (lots of fun) adjusting my html to point to the original ones. Any help appreciated. -Larry
one method is to return the file of *your* choice and include a content-type header of "text/html", the browser will interpret it as html, even if it originally requested an image in a img tag. this works in both NS and IE.
there is a piece of software on the market that protects against hotlinking *and* exhibits the above behaviour when it detects an attempt at hotlinking. the file that is returned can do anything that can be done in a html page including a meta-refresh, open multiple popups, etc.
I don't recall if the case addressed this as a violation of copyright, the website's TOS or other unlawful misappropriation.
As always, if you really want to know what position someone takes on how you use their content you could ask them, but when you are doint this to 1000s of websites it gets harder and harder to ask. Then again, that's a self-imposed difficulty. At the same time, if a judge rules it's a no-no, the fact that you did it to 1000s of websites might be an important factor in meting out money damages.
That sounds TOO easy, I know. Please fill me in with the dirty details! Sticky me if need be, but I'm sure others would love to know how to do this. Best - Larry
1) My images are 100% original with me, and I go thru the roof when somebody hotlinks those without credits or a link back. Are you sure hot-linking without credits etc. is 100% legal?
I should clarify. I meant linking to, not displaying the whole image on my site. It's legal to link and it's legal to create a thumbnail of the image as a link.
2) Exactly how do to increase your *page* traffic when somebody does hot-link?
People link directly to my content. Every now and then I change the name of my images, audio and video directories and use .htaccess to send all 404's to a page.
I vaguely recall a judicial decision that ruled framing violated the framee's rights and interests. You might want to dig a little bit.
So far, I think all of the cases have been settled short of a legal ruling (which, like the legality of simple linking, leaves its legality up in the air).
But it does bring up a good question. Is it better for someone to frame your page or not link to it at all?
To do this, you intercept the hotlink request and then either redirect to, or directly serve up a file *and* make sure that the content-type header is served up as "text/html". If you choose to redirect to a .htm , the server will automatically send the correct header because it is a new request of the correct type.
You cannot rename the html file as .gif or .jpg because your server will normally return a content-type header of "image/gif" or "image/jpeg".
The reason this works is that the browser will render according to the content-type header returned by the server.
Intercepting the hotlink *reliably* is the harder part of the exercise, returning the chosen content is trivial.
As I said, there is software on the market that does this. The TOS forbids me from mentioning it by name or url. Someone else can kick in here and help out, or you can sticky me. I always read WM in logged in mode, so I will see the sticky without problem.
plumsauce
+++
