TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Is framing theft? From:Steve Fouts <stefou -at- ESKIMO -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:24:23 -0700
Arlen Walker wrote:
>The newspapers are charging that the community web site (Ft-Wayne.com) is
>improperly linking to their sites. In particular they claim that the
>community site, by wrapping their pages in a frame which displays the
>community site's address along with advertising, is looting their property.
Sella Rush replied:
>Oh, yes. I strongly agree that framing crosses the line. There is simply
>no compelling reason to frame--no justifiable defense.
While I am no fan of framing, I think Sella's statement is a little bit
too strongly worded for me to be able to agree completely. Vincent Flanders
"Web Pages That Suck" uses frames to load up pages that he thinks are
examples of bad web page design. With the site loaded in one frame, Vincent
proceeds to make commentary in the other frame, pointing out the parts that
he thinks are examples of poor design. This, I believe, is pretty obviously
covered by fair use.
It is not any different than Jakob Neilsen or Jared Spool loading up web
pages on a monitor in a lecture hall and making commentary. Only the
medium differs.
I am not saying this to refute that, under certain circumstances, framing
someone else's site might be theft. I am just pointing out that like just
about everything else, (surprise!) there is considerable gray area here.
