STEVE STEIN, M.SC.
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN DIGITAL MEDIA * DIPLOMA COMPUTER SCIENTIST *
RESEARCH SCIENTIST * FREELANCER * HTTP://WWW.STEVE-STEIN.DE/SCIENCE/
TIM BERNERS-LEE
Time Berners-Lee graduated at Oxford University, England before he in 1989 proposed a
global hypertext project, to be known as the World Wide Web, an internet-based hypermedia
initiative for global information sharing while working at CERN, the European Particle
Physics Laboratory. It was designed to allow people to work together by combining their
knowledge in a web of hypertext documents.
He wrote the first World Wide Web server, "httpd", and the first client, "WorldWideWeb"
a what-you-see-is-what-you-get hypertext browser/editor, which ran in the NeXTStep
environment. This work was started in October 1990, and the program "WorldWideWeb"
first made available within CERN in December, and on the Internet at large in the summer
of 1991.
In his two articles about links and law Berners-Lee expresses his understanding and intention in use of hyperlinks
within documents amonst the world wide web. He presents examples of different use-cases and explains fundamental
differences in the application of various hypertext elements. In the second articles he focusses on existing myth about
the usage of links and explain why they are insubstantial and wrong. Both articles express Berners-Lee's personal point
of view and do not apply as legal guidelines.
LINKS AND LAW
Preface
This personal note I have put into the set of web architectural notes as it expresses fundamental understandings upon
which the practical use and power of the web rest.
The questions addressed are about the relationship of the hypertext forms of linked and embedded material to the
social concepts involved such as attribution, endorsement, and ownership of information.
Links in hypertext are new in that they can be followed automatically, but the concepts of reference and inclusion of
material predate paper. There should not therefore be much confusion about what links imply, but as there have been
some strange suggestions recently which would seriously damage the web, I write this note.
Abstract
Normal hypertext links do not of themselves imply that the document linked to is part of, is endorsed by, or
endorses, or has related ownership or distribution terms as the document linked from. However, embedding material by
reference (sometimes called an embedding form of hypertext link) causes the embedded material to become a part of
the embedding document.
Two sorts of link
Basic HTML has three ways of linking to other material on the web: the hypertext link from an anchor (HTML "A"
element), the general link with no specific source anchor within the document (HTML "LINK" element) and embedded
objects and images (IMG and OBJECT). Let's call A and LINK "normal" links as they are visible to the user as a
traversal between two documents. We'll call the thing between a document and an embedded image or object or
subdocument "embedding" links.
This distinction is an old one in hypertext. Some systems such Peter Brown's original "Guide" worked only by
expanding links inline, and some (such as HTML before the IMG tag was introduced) worked only with normal links.
Normal Links
The intention in the design of the web was that normal links should simply be references, with no implied meaning.
A normal hypertext link does NOT necessarily imply that
* One document endorses the other; or that
* One document is created by the same person as the other, or that
* One document is to be considered part of another.
Typically when the user of a graphical window-oriented Web browser follows a normal link, a new window is created
and the linked document is displayed in it, or the old document is deleted from its window and the linked document
displayed in its place. The window system has a user interface metaphor that things in different windows are different
objects.
Meaning in content
So the existence of the link itself does not carry meaning. Of course the contents of the linking document can carry
WEB 3.0 DESIGN * INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE * USER-EXPERIENCE CREATION *
USABILITY OPTIMIZATION * SCIENCE@STEVE-STEIN.DE

meaning, and often does. So, if one writes "See Fred's web pages (link) which are way cool" that is clearly some kind of
endorsement. If one writes "We go into this in more detail on our sales brochure (link)" there is an implication of
common authorship. If one writes "Fred's message (link) was written out of malice and is a downright lie" one is
denigrating (possibly libellously) the linked document. So the content of hypertext documents carry meaning often
about the linked document, and one should be responsible about this. In fact, clarifying the relative status of the linked
document is often helpful to the reader.
Embedded Material
The relationship between a document and an image embedded in that document is quite different from normal link.
(In some designs it is still refered to as a sort of link).
Images, embedded objects, and background sounds and images are by default to be considered part of the document.
If I say, "To understand this you only have to read this article", or "This is the agreement between us", I am talking
about a particular document. It is important that we have a clear picture of what is part of that document and what isn't.
Embedded images clearly are part of the embedding document. The author of a document has responsibility for the
content, even if the images he or she includes are from another web site.
(There are issues of expectations to be set about availability and security from corruption of remote material, but I do
not address these here. Here I just emphasize is that embedded images should be considered part of a document, but
documents connected by a normal link should be regarded as separate documents.)
We compose documents out of parts, and the finished work comprises contributions from the parts and also from
the arrangement. It is very important that we can include remote parts by reference without having to make a separate
local copy. When an embedded image (or sound) is included by reference to its original address (URI) this allows an
inquirer to know that address, and hence know the current version of the image. It allows the owner of the image to to
a certain extent to know and possibly to control who has access to that image. Also I expect in that in the future it will
allow one to find out the owner and licence terms for distribution of that image, which is important for intellectual
property rights to be respected on the Web.
Explict distinction
Advertising provides an exception to this rule: a case in which the embedded image is not part of the document. At
risk of making ittoo easy for users to turn off advertizing, it would be ideal if the distinction were make in the markup
between embeeded information which is or is not part of the document. This would allow, for example, a border to be
places around an advertizement to allow the user to realize that it does not come from the same source as the text. I
personally feel that this would be an important step forward in the integrity of the web. A flag like
<IMG src="banner-ad.gif" foreign>
would be fine.
User Interface
When Web documents are presented to people, most current browsers (1997) make a clear distinction between
embedded images, which are presented in the same window as the embedding document at the same time, and linked
documents which never are. The window system's concept of a "Window" is used to convey when things are part of the
same document. It is important for many reasons, some of which were mentioned above, that user interfaces continue
to make this distinction.
Frames
The "frames" of HTML unfortunately provide an interface which is less clear. The parts of the document do appear
with the same window, but because within a single frame (subsection of a window) one can follow hypertext links
replacing content with a separate document, it is easy to create the impression that the owner of the surrounding frames
is in fact responsible for the defining document. It is possible that work by the HTML community can produce explict
markup (such as the "foreign" flag above) for conveying, when frames are used, which parts of the screen are
considered to be the same document. In the mean time, it is appropriate for content providers so make efforts to
ensure by the design of (and/or statements on) their web pages that users are not left with the illusion that information
within an embedded frame is part of their document when it is really not.
A reminder that this is personal opinion, not related to W3C or MIT policy. I reserve the right to rephrase this if
misunderstandings occur, as its always difficult to express this sort of thing to a mixed and varied audience.
Nam liber tempor cum soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer.
LINKS AND LAW: MYTH
Myth one
Myth: "A normal link is an incitement to copy the linked document in a way which infringes copyright".
This is a serious misunderstanding. The ability to refer to a document (or a person or any thing else) is in general a
fundamental right of free speech to the same extent that speech is free. Making the reference with a hypertext link is
more efficient but changes nothing else.
When the "speech" itself is illegal, whether or not it contains hypertext links, then its illegality should not be affected
by the fact that it is in electronic form.
Users and information providers and lawyers have to share this convention. If they do not, people will be frightened

to make links for fear of legal implications. I received a mail message asking for "permission" to link to our site. I
refused as I insisted that permission was not needed.
There is no reason to have to ask before making a link to another site
But by the same token,
You are responsible for what you say about other people, and their sites, etc., on the web as anywhere
Myth Two
Myth: "Making a link to a document makes your document more valuable and therefore is a right you should pay".
This is another dangerous one. It is of course true that your document is made more valuable by links to high quality
relevant other documents. A review in a consumer magazine has added value because of the quality of the products to
which it refers the reader. I may be more valuable to you as a person if I refer you to other people by name, phone
number or URL. This doesn't mean I owe those people something.
We cannot regard anyone as having the "right not to be referred to" without completely pulling the rug out from
under free speech.
Myth three
Myth: "Making a link to someone's publicly readable document is an infringement of privacy."
The "security by obscurity" method of hiding things behind secret URLs has the property that anyone knowing the
URL (like a password) can pass it on. This is only a breach of confidentiality of there is some confidentiality agreement
which as been made.
Hall of Flame
Famous cases in which people tried to prevent others linking to their web pages include, if I recall correctly,
Ticketmaster trying to stop the Seattle Sidewalk site linking into its pages, so that those looking through the site about
the town could follow a link and buy tickets to the events. This was widely perceived not only as philosophically wrong
by falling for the myths above, but also crazy, as it was a protest against Seattle Sidewalk bring traffic and hence
business to the Ticketmaster site.
In 2002, A Danish court made an injunction preventing a Danish news filtering service (effectively a sort of search
engine) from linking to pages of a Danish newspaper. See the slashdot article. I assume that the appeals process will
clear up this after this time of writing (2002/07). If such decisions are accepted, the whole working of the web would
break down.
In 2004, a comment to the W3C TAG noted that the Athems Olympic site, no less, tried to prevent deep linking, to
pages such as their sports page. Thus, a vast set of rather unique resources were supposed to be not really part of the
web. They even try to constrain how one will link to entry page. The Athens site violates the principles above and sets a
very bad example. A pity, when the Olympics celebrate what is best in humanity, that the web presence should exclude
itself from the global discourse.
Conclusions about links
There are some fundamental principles about links on which the Web is based. These are principles allow the world
of distributed hypertext to work. Lawyers, users and technology and content providers must all agree to respect these
principles which have been outlined.
It is difficult to emphasize how important these issues are for society. The first amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, for example, addresses the right to speak. The right to make reference to something is inherent in that
right. On the web, to make reference without making a link is possible but ineffective - like speaking but with a paper
bag over your head.
A reminder this this is personal opinion, not related to W3C or MIT policy. I reserve the right to rephrase this if
misunderstandings occur, as its always difficult to express this sort of thing to a mixed and varied audience.
SOURCES
Berners-Lee, Tim. Links and Law. 1997, Available: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkLaw [Accessed at September
24th 2009]
Berners-Lee, Tim. Links and Law: Myths. 1997, Available: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyth [Accessed at
September 24th 2009]
NOTES
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................
REMARK
Copyright © 1997 Tim Bernes-Lee. Mirrored for fair use only and research. All rights reserved by owner of copyright.
berners-leetim-linksandlaw-1997-090924145627-phpapp01.doc Created on 24/09/2009 19:10:00/ Last printed