Links to news 'top stories' on other sites--is it legal?

[rnmcd]

Is it legal (if you don't have permission from the originating news source) to put links on your site to headlines of news stories that were published on other site?

Examples:

http://www.moreover.com/cgi-local/page?o=html&c=Top%20stories

http://www.mywire.com/Home.do;jsessionid=abc4Qz-0_jMHM60YvhGrr

[Wayne Luke]

It is legal to link to other sites. Whether it is their top stories or some other article. Most sites make their stories available via RSS feeds and Moreover.com is a site dedicated to providing syndicated news feeds for quick content to put on your site.

Interlinking between sites is one of the main points why the World Wide Web exists. To share information in an easy to use format. Just don't copy their content to your site.

[rnmcd]

A local newspaper contacted me and said to remove links to their articles from my site. They said that I was a direct competitor to them and they don't want my site to benefit from their articles.

How would a site like http://www.topix.com/city/montpelier-vt obtain their headlines? They obviously don't have a real person doing the linking.

Thanks.

[Wayne Luke]

RSS feeds...

And if you are linking to a site and not copying their content, then you aren't competing. You are feeding visitors to that site.

[rnmcd]

RSS feeds...

And if you are linking to a site and not copying their content, then you aren't competing. You are feeding visitors to that site.

They claim that I'm competing because my users use my forum to comment on the articles from their site.

[Wayne Luke]

You'll have to talk to a lawyer then to get the correct legal advice.

[MRGTB]

I agree with Wayne, if your getting their articles via RSS Feeds from their site, I really don't see what their issue is.

Would be different story if you was copying Articles from there site in full though. But even then. Double check they are the original Authors. I see many sites out there where it looks like they are the original Authors because they add there site name in the Article. Things like "Mysite - spoke to Joe Blogs" etc.

But then I've found many sites with the same article doing the same thing. Sometimes it's hard to tell who the original Author really was?

[rnmcd]

Double check they are the original Authors. I see many sites out there where it looks like they are the original Authors because they add there site name in the Article. Things like "Mysite - spoke to Joe Blogs" etc.

But then I've found many sites with the same article doing the same thing. Sometimes it's hard to tell who the original Author really was?

I am obtaining the RSS feeds from a legitimate newspaper's website.

[rnmcd]

Can a RSS provider charge for their RSS feeds and force the 'reader' to display the source of the RSS feed?

The newspaper has hinted to me that for a fee and a credit to them, on my forum, they would allow me to run their RSS articles on my site.

[Webnower]

I don't see how they could charge you or be upset in any way shape or form if their RSS feed is available to the general public.

Personally, I'd tell them to bug off and inform them that any further correspondence will have to come from their lawyer.

[Ati2]

Can a RSS provider charge for their RSS feeds and force the 'reader' to display the source of the RSS feed?

The newspaper has hinted to me that for a fee and a credit to them, on my forum, they would allow me to run their RSS articles on my site.

Of course they can. It's their content, they do whatever they want with it.

If you really want these feeds, and the price is not too high, I'd say go for it. Then you will have a written contract, and the situation will be totally cleared up. (Be sure to have a lawyer read through the contract before signing!)

[Webnower]

If they want to charge for it though, why is their feed publicly available? I could understand them being upset if he was somehow getting a private feed by bypassing something, but that's not what is taking place here as far as I can tell.

I'm not a lawyer or anything of the sort, but a little common sense tells me that they're complaining about something they don't fully understand. If they don't want people to use their feed, make it private somehow or get rid of it all together.

[Ati2]

If they want to charge for it though, why is their feed publicly available? I could understand them being upset if he was somehow getting a private feed by bypassing something, but that's not what is taking place here as far as I can tell.

Without knowing the details, it could be free for private use, such as for a person's own rss reader. I'm sure they have it written down in their TOS. If not, they probably should write that first, before asking people to remove the links.

[rnmcd]

If they want to charge for it though, why is their feed publicly available? I could understand them being upset if he was somehow getting a private feed by bypassing something, but that's not what is taking place here as far as I can tell.

I'm not a lawyer or anything of the sort, but a little common sense tells me that they're complaining about something they don't fully understand. If they don't want people to use their feed, make it private somehow or get rid of it all together.

I think they want people to use the RSS feed but not people that they feel are competitors. Matter of fact, I tried to advertise my website in their newspaper and they wouldn't allow that.

[Ati2]

I think they want people to use the RSS feed but not people that they feel are competitors. Matter of fact, I tried to advertise my website in their newspaper and they wouldn't allow that.

OMG, then they really DO feel like you are competing... Strange. Anyway, my suggestion would be to either forget them (and remove the feed), or go for their offer, if their content is really worth is.