Editing Deep linking (section)

== Court rulings ==

Probably the earliest legal case arising out of deep linking was the 1996 [[Scotland|Scottish]] case of ''[[The Shetland Times]] vs. [[The Shetland News]]'', in which the ''Times'' accused the ''News'' of appropriating stories on the ''Times''<nowiki>'</nowiki> website as its own.<ref>{{cite web|work=BBC|title= Shetland Internet squabble settled out of court|date= 11 November 1997|url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/29191.stm}}</ref><ref>For a more extended discussion, see generally the Wikipedia article [[Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing]].</ref>

At the beginning of 2006, in a case between the search engine [[Bixee.com]] and job site Naukri.com, the [[Delhi High Court]] in [[India]] prohibited Bixee.com from deep linking to [[Naukri.com]].<ref>{{cite web
 |url=http://www.efytimes.com/efytimes/fullnews.asp?edid=9018&magid= 
 |title=High Court Critical On Deeplinking 
 |access-date=May 30, 2007 
 |date=Dec 29, 2005 
 |publisher=EFYtimes.com 
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927235203/http://www.efytimes.com/efytimes/fullnews.asp?edid=9018&magid= 
 |archive-date=2007-09-27 
 |url-status=dead 
}}</ref>

The most important and widely cited U.S. opinions on deep linking are the Ninth Circuit's rulings in ''[[Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.]]''<ref>336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003).</ref> and ''[[Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.]]''.<ref>487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2007).</ref> In both cases, the court exonerated the use of deep linking. In the second of these cases, the court explained (speaking of defendant Google, whom Perfect 10 had also sued) why linking is not a copyright infringement under US law:

<blockquote>Google does not…display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user's computer screen. Because Google's computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any "material objects…in which a work is fixed…and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated" and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user's browser to a website publisher's computer that stores the full-size photographic image. Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user's computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user's browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user's computer screen. Google may facilitate the user's access to infringing images. However, such assistance raised only contributory liability issues and does not constitute direct infringement of the copyright owner's display rights. …While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act, unlike the Trademark Act, does not protect a copyright holder against acts that cause consumer confusion.</blockquote>

In December 2006, a Texas court ruled that linking by a [[motocross]] website to videos on a Texas-based motocross video production website did not constitute fair use.  The court subsequently issued an injunction.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-6145744.html|title=Judge: Can't link to Webcast if copyright owner objects|access-date=May 30, 2007|author=Declan McCullagh|publisher=News.com}}</ref> This case, SFX Motor Sports Inc., v. Davis, was not published in official reports, but is available at 2006 WL 3616983.

In a February 2006 ruling, the [[Maritime and Commercial Court (Denmark)|Danish Maritime and Commercial Court]] ([[Copenhagen]]) found systematic [[web crawler|crawling]], indexing and deep linking by portal site {{Not a typo|ofir.dk}} of real estate site {{Not a typo|Home.dk}} not to conflict with Danish law or the database directive of the [[European Union]]. The Court stated that search engines are desirable for the functioning of the Internet, and that, when publishing information on the Internet, one must assume—and accept—that search engines deep-link to individual pages of one's website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bvhd.dk/uploads/tx_mocarticles/S_-_og_Handelsrettens_afg_relse_i_Ofir-sagen.pdf|title=Udskrift af SØ- & Handelsrettens Dombog|language=da|access-date=May 30, 2007|date=February 24, 2006|publisher=Bvhd.dk|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012005033/http://www.bvhd.dk/uploads/tx_mocarticles/S_-_og_Handelsrettens_afg_relse_i_Ofir-sagen.pdf|archive-date=October 12, 2007}}</ref>