Newspapers are an important part of the UK news space, and so it is in every democracy. The present regime of the internet has equally brought a new dimension to how pieces of news are disseminated to reach a wider audience, thus adding efficiency to the news business. It stands reiteration that the internet holds a lot of promises and potentials which news outfits have leveraged and are still benefiting from.
Nonetheless, it’s regrettably to note that most of these news outfits are not yet ready to fully embrace the internet. This conclusion arises from the bottleneck of ‘no link to us’ inserted carefully into the terms and conditions of their sites. You may be wondering what this ‘jargon’ is saying? Unauthorized linking to their websites by a third party is disallowed. It’s that simple. Smiles.
No doubt, it’s a universally accepted practice or standard for publications to disallow people from copying their materials. That’s fair enough, quite understandable. However, what these papers are doing with this “no link to us” term and condition seems to be stretching the whole thing to absurdity. The irony of the whole business is that they still have share buttons clustering their websites! Perhaps, you may call it confusion. Smiles.
The Guardian
This news outfit must be credited for being a ‘deviant.’ By being the first outfit to open up their content for free via ‘Open Platform,’ they are changing the face of information dissemination in the face of the internet revolution and showing others ‘how to do it.’
Let’s now quickly examine how ‘others’ have fared so far under this ‘no link to us’ regime.
The Sun
Clause 10 shows their position as simple as this: ‘unauthorized linking to the website is prohibited.’ It’s simple, isn’t it? It’s what you see: no unauthorized linking to their website is allowed under any circumstances. It’s simply prohibited!
Daily Mail
Their position? No linking. For your enjoyment, the following information is reproduced from their terms and conditions: “You may not provide a link to this website from any other website without first obtaining Associated’s prior written consent.” You know what to do before you hit that button, right? You have to wait for that written consent signed and delivered to you!
Times
The same old story – no linking. “Unauthorized … linking to the Website is prohibited”. The instructions are simple and clear, I bet you would agree with me.
Daily Mirror
They have this to say: ” “You also agree not to deep-link and/or frame to the Site for any purpose unless specifically authorized by MGN Ltd to do so.” The summary of these ambiguous terms is not linking.
Independent
Their position is conflicting. One term and conditions read “Third parties are permitted to link to stories within INM websites, using the URL and quoting the headline and the source website.” This is, however, swiftly contradicted with another clause which states “Third parties must not deep-link to … any part of the Website”
Telegraph
No trace of “no link to us” was found. Probably deleted or something of that nature.
Financial Times
Reading for personal reasons? Yes, you can. However, if it extends to commercial purposes, you are instructed to contact their Content Sales Team via FTSales.Support@ft.com to discuss “your business requirements.”
That’s it for your favorite news outfits. While you enjoy the services they avail to you, you might equally need to know about this piece of information.
