We are going to need new law to deal with the peculiarities of the internet.

We were discussing copyright on the VO forums and a minor point concerned placing another person's page in your frame. I wanted to expose my following comment to the larger discussion base here. It is quickly becoming obvious that copyright-law interpretation does not easily move over to the Internet. There seems to be the Internet-concept that you can steal something without ever taking possession or without denying the use to the owner. On to the quote. (This is just me thinking, I really don't know what I am talking about).

"Now here is an idea. Don't know what it means.

When you place someone else's page in your frame you don't really take possession of their work. I mean, your frame page is just a link. The html does not go through your site. You do not have a copy of their page, images, PHP, etc on your server. YOU HAVE NOT COPIED ANYTHING to your computer (you may have copied something abstract)."

It is definitely not the same as downloading his software and delivering it from your site.

"It is as if you have automatically clicked on a link for the viewer. Hmmmm. You have pointed a finger and turned his/her head, not just pointed a finger. "

Here is another view that does not move over to the Internet - In the physical world you don't violate someone's copyright by putting his/her painting in a frame.

And by the way, I am not an advocate for framing. I support appropriate protection of our work.

Gary

Consequently, the creator of an unauthorized framing or embedding page could be held liable for copyright infringement due to a violation of the adaptation right, as long as no fact-specific defense applies. However, the finding that only the adaptation right is implicated and probably infringed poses a couple of theoretical problems. Based on the premise that a duplication in RAM is too transitory to qualify as a "copy" under the Copyright Act, the reproduction right is not implicated. Therefore, the adaptation right fills the gap left behind by the inapplicability of the reproduction right, due to the fact that an infringing derivative work does not have to be fixed. Framing and embedding, thus, can be considered the rare cases where the adaptation right takes on substantive significance, because neither the reproduction nor the public performance and display rights are infringed. Since this interpretation of the adaptation right seems to encompass rights usually covered by an integrity right, it would probably meet resistance by "courts oriented against moral rights." It has to be noted, however, that the integrity right discussed here is not a moral right, protecting the author's honor and reputation, but the copyright owner's economic right to make changes. Therefore, the question is not whether to allow moral rights, but how to determine the scope of infringement of the adaptation right. Extending the scope of the adaptation right to a "right to make changes" is the only consistent way of applying copyright law to the new technological phenomenon of framing and embedding.

Washington Post Co. v. Total News, Inc.
§Framing was "at the heart of Defendants' wrongful conduct" in Washington Post Co. v. Total News, Inc. The plaintiffs had been placing their news stories on their individual Web sites, along with advertisements paid for by the plaintiffs' advertisers. The defendants retrieved the news stories from the plaintiffs' Web site and placed them into a frame surrounded by the defendants' logo and advertising, while the plaintiffs' advertisements were not displayed. Among other allegations, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were "republishing" their news stories, "making it available without Plaintiffs' consent," and making "unauthorized use of the content of the Plaintiffs' websites." The case was settled before the defendants answered the complaint. The settlement does not allow any framing whatsoever, not even indirectly; the defendants are prohibited from framing or linking to a page which frames the plaintiffs' material. Additionally, the defendants are not allowed to frame or to link to a page that includes copyrighted material, even if the page is not operated by any of the plaintiffs.

Hi Projo,
I don't quite understand which is your position: Do you think loading other people's pages in your frame should be allowed or not?

Actually, as suggested in the above post, this type of conduct is considered illicite and I don't see how someone could pretend it wasn't:

Wether the owner of such a site gets in touch with the bits and bytes shown in the frame (as you mentioned, she doesn't), is of no importance. Fact is, that the page, including a frame with third partie content, was composed by her.

Puting someone's painting in a frame isn't a violation of copyright, provided you own that copy of the painting. If you prepare a new copy of the painting without the author's permission, you do infringe her copyright. That's what you do when you show other people's content in your frame, IMHO.

I think framing is allright, as long as you have a notice that says that it is someone elses site. There should also be a frame buster program.

I think it is kinda like a web browser. No one holds Netscape or IE responsible for copyright infringement!

I don't know if I have a good argument, but just wanted to add something will I form my opinion.
Originally posted by astra4
Puting someone's painting in a frame isn't a violation of copyright, provided you own that copy of the painting. If you prepare a new copy of the painting without the author's permission, you do infringe her copyright. That's what you do when you show other people's content in your frame, IMHO.
I disagree. It is more like someone has a picture on a wall and you put a frame on your wall infront of it and cut a hole in it so that people can see the other painting through the hole in your wall.

I certinally agree that framing can be bad, and many people misuse it. But I don't think it is always bad, just annoying :)

Originally posted by astra4

I don't quite understand which is your position: Do you think loading other people's pages in your frame should be allowed or not?


I think people's work should be protected. My focus (obviously ill presented) was on the tremendous differences between the world where physical objects exists, books/paintings/etc, and the virtual aspects of the Internet and how our thinking about property does not move over by simple analogies. My reaction was to several posters at another site trying to resolve what could be done and what could not. And then my personal evaluation of my attempt to give simple physical world analogies that just didn't fit the virtual world (for example, you can not even read someone's work without actually making a copy of it in your local cache, where it may reside for a while -- and actually you may read from that copy many times at later dates). And almost every guidance-statement I attempted to come up with (posted or not) seemed to be plagued with discontinuities, e.g. you can link to a site put can not frame it, but a frame is just a link with automatic display (not talking about extracting information). So perhaps for the first time I appreciated the magnitude of the problem of personal-property-protection on the Internet and wanted to share comments to see what else I might appreciate.

And I have really enjoyed the responses. Very informative definitely food for further thought, at least on my part.

And, astra4, I like your analogy about the painting.

Thanks for your posts, everyone.
Gary

Originally posted by Dogma
I disagree. It is more like someone has a picture on a wall and you put a frame on your wall infront of it and cut a hole in it so that people can see the other painting through the hole in your wall.
Well, in my opinion the author of a work has not only the right to decide whether to publish or not, but also where she wants to publish it.

Concerning internet, where means on which website, i.e. the target audience to which the work shall be shown. Describing Internet as one huge place open to everybody is maybe technically correct, but it doesn't describe its social reality. Different sites have different type and volume of people visiting and it's up to the author to decide where the work shall be published.

If we're talking about quality content, the right to publish it may also have a commercial value, because visitors interested in that content will have to visit that particular site. Most people who show other sites in frames do this to add some quality to their own site...

Anyway. Indicating the source of the content is certainly a good thing, but it's not enough IMHO. Why not simply ask the author of the site if it's ok - is that so difficoult?