Linking Is A Copyright Violation

30 March 2004, 11:18

On June 5, 2002 I linked to an article that appeared in Wired News magazine. Today, March 30, 2004, the author of that article wrote this to me by adding a comment to my June 5, 2002 entry:

IP Address: 152.10.82.75
Name: Nan Chase
Email Address: nanchase@bellsouth.net
URL:

Comments:

I don’t have any record of your having gotten permission to reprint electronically the article Grid to Green. I own all rights, and you are in copyright violation. Wired News passes along all legitimate reprint requests, but I have received none concerning this one.

Please respond ASAP,
Nan Chase
Boone NC
828-262-1737

I replied to this comment as follows:

Nan:

This is easy to fix. I’ll delete the link I made to Wired News. I’ll also post a retraction of you, your article and any further linking to work you’ve done or any that Wired News does.

To more accurately state the ”case,” my electronic pointer to Wired News directed readers of my website to your article. My belief in doing so was that I was extending you a compliment and suggesting to my readers that they might enjoy your work.

My apologies for my mistaken notion.

Steve

All links to Nan’s article are gone. I’ve also edited the entry I made on June 5, 2002. Rest assured that her statement that I ”reprinted electronically” is simply not true, unless someone wants to claim that a link praising the work is the same as ”reprinting electronically.”

Filed under:

  1. That's just flat-out silly! Well, if she doesn't want people to link to her article, then it's her loss. That means a lot less people will be reading it. Simply linking an article is NOT a copyright violation. And even if you would have excerpted a paragraph or two, you would have been well within your Fair Use rights. This blog seems to be defunct, but it dealt with this very subject.
    — susan b.    30 March 2004, 14:20    #
  2. A click Google search turns up the fact that Nan Chase is a marketing consultant. What kind of marketing consultant doesn't realize that positive word-of-mouth is a GOOD thing? I realize there are contexts in which a link is inappropriate. A link to a paid-subscriber database that bypasses the host site's sign-in system, for example, would be unethical. There are other unethical ways one can use links as well. But all this situation is is an online positive reference to the original source -- rather like writing that a certain book is good, and providing a link to the publisher's website. By the way, Google links to some stories to Nan Chase. Do you suppose Google got a letter? She actually writes pretty well, but I'm not going to supply any links. (I'm signing on as "anonymous" because I don't want a letter.)
    — Anonymous    31 March 2004, 16:28    #

 ||