# At what point does URL hyperlinking become unauthorized reproduction of someone else's content? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 29, 2018, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392 "2018-03-29T03:22:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![pdhenry](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pdhenry/32/5561_2.png) [@pdhenry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pdhenry)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2018, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392/21 "2018-03-30T00:30:43Z")
As I understand the ruling, URLs can’t be copyrighted because they only contain factual and function features. See [Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticketmaster_Corp._v._Tickets.com,_Inc.)(Wikipedia). ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2018, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392/22 "2018-03-30T00:46:55Z")
> [@pdhenry](#): > > As I understand the ruling, URLs can’t be copyrighted because they only contain factual and function features. See [Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticketmaster_Corp._v._Tickets.com,_Inc.)(Wikipedia). That makes sense to me… But what about when I create a link that allows my website visitor to click on the exact same words as your news headline contains, and the link sends them to your news article on your site? And what if instead I change the headline’s wording a bit, but I keep the meaning clear? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2018, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392/23 "2018-03-30T20:55:25Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Sure they can; it’s happened several times in several jurisdictions. Since these judgments are idiotic and the precedents they set have chilling, wide-ranging consequences, they sometimes make the headlines, and often get overturned on appeal. But not always. Can you list one case where merely a link forced a website to be taken down by order of a court for copyright infringement? ---
**Author:** ![pdhenry](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pdhenry/32/5561_2.png) [@pdhenry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pdhenry)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2018, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392/24 "2018-03-30T21:45:38Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > That makes sense to me… But what about when I create a link that allows my website visitor to click on the exact same words as your news headline contains, and the link sends them to your news article on your site? > > And what if instead I change the headline’s wording a bit, but I keep the meaning clear? If you send me to my site (and not to embedded content in your site) I think the case I linked says I can’t complain (legally). I suppose I could refuse traffic that arrives from a link on your site. That used to be easy to determine. Maybe it would just amp up the battle. The real problem occurs if you dynamically incorporate my content in your site such that it looks like your content. I’d say that’s infringing of my copyright. ---
**Author:** ![Blakeyrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecd19e/32.png) [@Blakeyrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blakeyrat)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2018, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392/25 "2018-03-30T22:01:11Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > As for YouTube copyright claims, that’s more of a [DMCA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Notice_from_copyright_owner) thing that doesn’t have to do with linking at all, but legal obligations for content hosts. There is an appeals process by which you can theoretically get your content put back up, but it’s a pain. YouTube has implemented their own system called ContentID which is actually _more_ restrictive than the DMCA. They’ll still deal with DMCA requests if they get them (well, they don’t really have a choice), but if your content is being taken you’d be better off using ContentID and YouTube would strongly encourage you to. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2018, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392/26 "2018-03-30T23:20:26Z")
> [@pdhenry](#): > > If you send me to my site (and not to embedded content in your site) I think the case I linked says I can’t complain (legally). > > I suppose I could refuse traffic that arrives from a link on your site. That used to be easy to determine. Maybe it would just amp up the battle. > > The real problem occurs if you dynamically incorporate my content in your site such that it looks like your content. I’d say that’s infringing of my copyright. What if I use the exact words of your headline? Is that enough content to cause the problem? Or what if I write something that means the same? Similarly, what if I link to your site using a similar-but-not-identical picture to what you used? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2018, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392/27 "2018-03-31T00:01:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **pdhenry** : > > The real problem occurs if you dynamically incorporate my content in your site such that it looks like your content. I’d say that’s infringing of my copyright. I think that the current caselaw is that the copying is done by the host, not by the client, which would mean that dynamically incorporating content is not a copyright violation. Of course, it might still be a violation of other forms of intellectual property, and hosts are also free to implement technical ways of preventing it from happening. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2018, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392/28 "2018-03-31T03:01:35Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > But … Hey, why is it that news outlets aren’t suing each other every single morning, over the fact that they both ran the same story last night? Mostly because they aren’t running the \*same \*story but their own versions of it. If the stories are identical it’s normally because they license to use the content, as with the Associated Press or any of the other numerous syndicates. Note that quoting \*portions \*of the content _with attribution_ is normally fair use. I say “normally” because illegal copying does occur. Even the Dope gets shadowed illegally. > [@DavidwithanR](#): > > That makes sense to me… But what about when I create a link that allows my website visitor to click on the exact same words as your news headline contains, and the link sends them to your news article on your site? No problem in the U.S. > [@](#): > > And what if instead I change the headline’s wording a bit, but I keep the meaning clear? No problem in the U.S. > [@DavidwithanR](#): > > What if I use the exact words of your headline? Is that enough content to cause the problem? No problem in the U.S. > [@](#): > > Or what if I write something that means the same? No problem in the U.S. > [@](#): > > Similarly, what if I link to your site using a similar-but-not-identical picture to what you used? No problem in the U.S. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2018, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392/29 "2018-03-31T12:26:14Z")
It’s probably possible, in principle, for a headline to be long enough to be, itself, copyrightable. But the bounds of just how short a written work can be and still be copyrightable are very murky in caselaw. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2018, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392/30 "2018-03-31T15:31:33Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It’s probably possible, in principle, for a headline to be long enough to be, itself, copyrightable. But the bounds of just how short a written work can be and still be copyrightable are very murky in caselaw. You could copy a complete 5,000 word article and stick a link around the whole thing. The violation is in the copying, though. The fact that you stuck a link around it is irrelevant. The copyright cases kept trying to mush the concepts together but that’s what the courts have rejected. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392/31 "2018-04-01T07:29:34Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Can you list one case where merely a link forced a website to be taken down by order of a court for copyright infringement? This is not exactly the same, but [here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Reserve,_Inc._v._Utah_Lighthouse_Ministry,_Inc.). > [@](#): > > The court then issued a permanent injunction that “dissolved and vacated” the preliminary injunction, replacing it with an injunction based on a settlement between the parties.[2] In this injunction the court forbade Utah Lighthouse Ministry from posting on the Internet, displaying, or reproducing the Church Handbook of Instructions. Lighthouse Ministry was further prohibited from posting on the Internet the URLs of any websites that hosted any materials from the Church Handbook of Instructions. The Lighthouse Ministry is a organization set up by a husband and wife team of former Mormons. They were anonymously given the LDS church’s Church Handbook of Instructions, a guide for the lay leaders which is not available to the general membership. The ministry then published some of the material as well as a link to a site unrelated to them which had published the entire handbook. This is different in that it was not simply a link to legally published material, but a link to material published in violation of copyright laws. Because of a lack of funds and other reasons, the ministry settled the case, which lead to the court’s decision. The order may not have stood up to full challenge, including appeals to higher courts. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392/32 "2018-04-04T21:13:10Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > This is not exactly the same, but [here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Reserve,_Inc._v._Utah_Lighthouse_Ministry,_Inc.). Not even close to being the same thing. > [@Fair Use](#): > > The defendants had obtained a copy of the work and published parts of it on their website without reproducing the Intellectual Reserve, Inc. copyright notice. The copyrighted text had also been disseminated to other websites who had published the material, to which the defendants’ website linked. The question on the table is: is it ever a copyright infringement to merely provide a link to a website [like this](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTANB1KFBgbcBTShmfGuZkpzU5zD5ql8FMLGCOCsvk1tlCAS_1v9w). ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2018, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392/33 "2018-06-03T12:47:59Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Can you list one case where merely a link forced a website to be taken down by order of a court for copyright infringement? Sure. The most famous case in recent memory was when an EU court ruled that linking without permission violates copyright. This has attracted (and continues to attract) a lot of attention on tech sites. I first read about it in 2016 in a story on Slashdot ([Linking Without Permission Violates Copyright, Rules EU Court](https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/09/08/202228/linking-without-permission-violates-copyright-rules-eu-court)) which helpfully provided links to [, as well as reporting by [url=[Playboy wins copyright battle over web links to its images | Reuters](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-playboy-copyright-idUSKCN11E1LR)]Reuters](]the original court ruling[/url). As of a few months ago, the same issue was still being litigated, this time in the US: the when the popular tech/news/culture blog Boing Boing covered the original story, it reproduced the “infringing” link, and so the rights holders sued them in California. [The suit was eventually dropped](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/playboy-drops-misguided-copyright-case-against-boing-boing) after the Electronic Frontier Foundation stepped in. There is a [Wikipedia article on the topic of copyright and hyperlinking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing#History_of_copyright_litigation_in_field) that lists some other cases, usually involving search engines and news aggregators “deep linking” to stories on newspapers’ websites. (Sorry for the delay in responding—I had to take a short break from posting due to unfortunate events in real life.) ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392/34 "2018-06-13T12:31:04Z")
I thought I’d bump this thread to report on some proposed EU legislation that’s been attracting a lot of news coverage. Article 11 of the [EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593), which MEPs are due to vote on in a few days, would allow member states to implement so-called “link taxes” for news content. These would empower press agencies to assert copyright on and collect mandatory usage fees for hyperlinks to their content. If you don’t pay the fee, you’d be in breach of copyright. (The Article in question seems to be written in a deliberately obfuscated way. Some interpret it as applying to _any_ link to news content, which precisely fits the OP’s scenario. Other believe it applies only to links where the link target is to a news article and the link text quotes the news article, possibly even if the quotation is simply the headline itself.) A lot of tech law commentators, civil rights groups, and websites that rely on user-generated content are up in arms about the proposed directive, including [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/8qfw8l/protecting_the_free_and_open_internet_european/), [Tom’s Hardware](https://www.tomshardware.com/news/eu-censorship-machines-link-tax,37286.html), [Julia Reda](https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/), and the [Electronic Frontier Foundation](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/how-have-europes-upload-filtering-and-link-tax-plans-changed), and the [Creative Commons](https://creativecommons.org/2018/04/24/56-organsiations-tell-eu-legislator-to-delete-the-absurd-link-tax/). (I’d provide links to sites in favour of Article 11 but couldn’t find any.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-url-hyperlinking-become-unauthorized-reproduction-of-someone-elses-content/811392.md?page=1)