--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Corporate Websites
By Jon Grossman
A. Introduction
The Internet has
become one of the foremost tools for disseminating, researching, and accessing
information. No communication medium or
consumer electronics technology has ever grown so quickly. As of January 1997, over 56 million people
had access to Internet worldwide. By
the year 2000, Internet use is expected to grow to 450 million worldwide. The relatively low investment required for
information dissemination has permitted businesses, government agencies,
associations, libraries, museums, and countless ordinary people to communicate
with literally tens of millions of people around the world virtually
instantaneously and at low cost.
Most commercial
entities, realizing the vast commercial possibilities available, and wishing to
appear technologically current, have created their own websites. The potential for quick, easy, and global
dissemination of information fostered a tremendous growth in the number of
growth websites. Numerous corporate
websites have been created. For
example, in 1995 the number of law firm websites was so small that they all
could be visited within less than one hour.
By 1997, well over 2000 law firm websites had been created, with more
websites being added weekly. The market
penetration for companies with in house legal department is likely to be
higher. With this fast paced
development, it is no surprise that changes in the law have lagged somewhat
behind. But changes in the law relating
to the Internet are occurring. This
article explores one area of law as it relates to the Internet – these legal
issues relating to the creation and maintenance of an Internet website.
B. What Is A Website?
A “Website” is an
electronic location on the world wide web that may contain text, sound, and
graphical information. The website has
an address that starts with “http” and ends with a suffix indicating the type
of organization sponsoring the website.1
A major difference between the Web and the Internet in general is the
presence of “hypertext” links in most websites. A hyperlink is an underlined portion of text on a website that
allows a user, by clicking on the highlighted text, to be connected to a
different site. As opposed to linear
text, which requires a user to read from left to right, top to bottom,
beginning to end, in hypertext, the user follows links that take him or her to
various different places in the document, or even to other websites without
scanning through the entire text. Thus, hypertext links allow a user to move
from one web page to another almost instantaneously.
In addition to
hyperlinks, which will be referred to as “out links,” newer websites may also
contain divided screens or “frames” that may help a user to “point” to another
Web location. In other words, “frame”
technology is a page display capability which enables the display of multiple
and independently scrollable panels on a single screen. including text,
hypertext, graphics, and other frames.
Used on the Web a frame acts as a pointer to a document, image, or clip
on the Web contained in another Web page that pulls the document, image, or
clip from the other Web page into the current document for display.
Websites are
comprised of multiple “pages” that may be actually shorter or longer than the
actual paper pages of information. As
explained by one court, a web page is a computer data file on a host operating
a web server within a given domain name.
When the web server receives an inquiry from the Internet, it returns
the web page data in the file to the computer making the inquiry. The web page may comprise a single line or
multiple pages of information and may include any message, name, word, sound or
picture, or combination of such elements.
Intermatic Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F. Supp. 1227 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
C. Getting
Started: Naming Your Website
In order to have
a website, you need to first apply for a domain name. The domain name is both an identification and an address. All Internet computers address each other in
terms of numbers and use a common protocol (TCP/IP protocol) to communicate
with each other. Each server hooked up
to this interconnected computer network has a unique designation number,
composed of four parts, each less than 256 characters. Because people found remembering the numbers
assigned to each computer too difficult, the server’s designation number was
replaced by domain names that people could remember. Domain names take on a hierarchical format, where the final word
(e.g. “com” ) after the last dot (e.g. in “http: //www.dsmo.com”) is the
top-level domain. Originally, six
top-level domains were established (“com” = commercial; “edu” = educational;
“org” = organizational; “mil” = military; “net” = network; and “gov” =
governmental). Later, additional
top-level domains were added based on unique two-letter domain names
representing different countries (e.g. “uk” for United Kingdom, “jp” for Japan,
and “se” for Sweden). At present, more
top-level domains are sought to be added.
Domain names are
assigned by a single entity known as Internic.
Internic is run by Network Solutions, Inc., a company located in
Northern Virginia. In order to obtain
the domain name, Internic searches its records to see if the chosen name is
taken. Domain names are generally
issued by Internic on a first-come first-served basis. If the company’s natural domain name is
taken, the company may consider a multitude of options: including misspellings,
unusual punctuation, using a specialty or geographic domain name such as
“patent.com” or “virginiabroker.com.”
For companies with international offices multiple domain names are
recommended particularly when the company maintains a website in more than one
language.
Trademarks may be
used as companies’ domain names.
Because trademark rights are recognized
in a narrow class of goods or services, different companies could have
similar marks in different industries.
For example, “Delta” is the trade mark for both an airline and a faucet
manufacturer. If Delta Airlines selects
delta.com as its domain name, Delta Airlines would not commit trademark
infringement, but the faucet manufacturer would be blocked from using its trade
name as its domain name.
Similarly, domain
names may be used as trademarks. As
more people communicate online and more companies use e-mail for marketing and
advertising, more companies will advertise their domain names and claim
trademark protection in those names.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has already taken the position that
Internet domain names may be registered when used as trademarks. See Intermatic Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F. Supp.
1227 (N.D. Ill. 1996); Panavision Int’l v. Toeppen,945 F. Supp. 1296 (C.D. Cal.
1996).
After determining
that the domain name that your company wants has not been taken you must either (1) set up a server and get
an Internet connection (about $20-40,000 first year cost) or (2) contract with
an Internet service provider to host your top level domain name (roughly
$600-4,000 first year cost). In the
latter case, the service provider will handle registering your new domain name
with Internic. In turn, Internic will
electronically survey the server to ensure that it responds to your domain
name; thus, application for a domain name is impossible without having an
Internet service provider or your own server set up to respond to Internic’s
query.
It should be
noted that a whole industry around domain names has developed. Some individuals have attempted to take well
known brand names and add “.com” after the name. These individuals are known as cyber-squatters. Presently, cyber-squatter domain names are
being challenged in various courts, and appear to be of doubtful validity. As with any important business decision with
legal implications, consult specialized counsel.
D. Consideration in
Building The Website
The next step is to build your website. Usually companies firms will either rely on someone in their MIS
department, or an outside contractor, to build the site. Each approach has
distinct legal advantages and disadvantages.
If your company is going to build a website, it must do it well. Obviously, your company cannot get an
indemnification when using an employee, and this is a reason to get an
outsider. On the other hand, your
company may want someone who is technically competent and able to update the
website regularly. This aspect is
important in the securities industry, because your company may have an
opportunity to update. Failing to
provide a timely update may have securities law implications.
Of course, some
companies offer website maintenance services.
For example, many large Internet providers have website divisions that
will gladly assist a company in creating a website for a price. Small companies should expect to pay
anywhere between $750 and up for a well-designed website; mid-size companies
between $1,500 and $3,000; and large companies from $3,000 and up. If your company decides to use an outside
service, your company should shop around and check the outsider’s references,
i.e. their client’s websites.
Whether your
company uses an insider or outsider, there are some critical copyright law
ramifications. If MIS employees are
used, it is likely that the firm will own the copyright in its websites
(excluding third party material). That
is because when the work was created by an employee working within the scope of
his/her duty, the resulting product, absent an agreement otherwise, is
considered “work-made-for-hire”. A
work-made-for-hire makes your company the author, and thus the owner, of the
copyright. By contrast, the independent
contractor would need to assign the copyright to you or your company. Sometimes it is hard to obtain or negotiate
an assignment. Indeed, many web
builders do not assign copyright ownership to the software because they want to
re-use portions of the website’s software for other customers. A way to avoid such a logjam is to receive
an assignment on the format, graphics and overall look and feel of the web
pages and home page of the website with a license to the developer’s
software.
A common
misconception when using an outside developer is that you can obtain copyright
ownership by executing an agreement deeming the website as a
“work-made-for-hire”. However, this
will not usually work. Only certain
works can be made pursuant to a work-made-for-hire contract, and websites are
not often one of them.2 An assignment
is always the safest route.
Another
disadvantage to having the employee build the website relates to
liability. To the extent you can
negotiate a license from the independent contractor, the more likely you can
add protective language in the form of warranties, indemnifications,
maintenance obligations, consequential damages and even in some cases insurance
protection. Also, by licensing the
website, the licensor has the obligation to enforce its rights, such as
copyrights, in order to preserve the underlying value of your license. One issue/liability that cannot be
delegated, however, is ethical obligations.
Thus, reliance on an outsider must be tempered by close supervision and
care to ensure that an attorney’s ethical obligations to his or her clients are
not compromised by the website.
E. Legal Issues
Regarding Framing And Linking
As previously
noted “Framing” refers to the use of HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) code that
allows Web page creators and users to divide the browser window into separate
windows on the same page called “frames.”
In attempting to keep the user’s attention focused on the current Web
page, some page builders have framed around other company’s websites to create
more content. Some recent court cases
have erupted around this practice, alleging that it amounts to an impermissible
passing off or misappropriation of the framed website’s content. Care therefore must be taken when framing
the content of other websites to provide some form of attribution. Also, in the event that advertising on the
framed website is removed, be forewarned that this practice will likely trigger
problems.
Once the website
is built, you may then want to link it to other sites. Linking facilitates meeting new people whom
you otherwise would never meet. As
mentioned in part A, hyperlinks are commonly placed on existing web pages,
allowing Internet users to move rapidly from one web page to another by just
clicking on one button. The process is
simple: someone with a related site may
have a hypertext link from their site to yours. Potential customers looking for information on that site can
click on the hypertext and jump directly to your company’s site. A common type of link involves an exchange
of links from and to each site. Law
firms can also buy banner advertising on popular sites such as Yahoo. Thus, providing good and readily available
contact information will likely have more people linking to your site, without
their requesting a link back.
One issue
regarding linking, is whether their creation constitutes copyright
infringement. Although case law on this
point is sparse, it is worth noting a couple of recent cases.
In Shetland Times
Ltd. v. Wills, a Scottish case, the defendants used the headlines of the
plaintiffs' stories as links to the plaintiffs' newspaper articles published on
the Internet. The question was whether
headlines were copyrightable subject matter.
A preliminary injunction was granted, and the case settled on November
11, 1997. In The Washington Post Co. v.
Total News, Inc., a case regarding linking and framing discussed below,
paragraph 4 of the settlement allows the defendants to link to the plaintiffs'
Web site, but only by using the full URL.
Both settlements show that the companies involved agree that the use of
the plain URL in a link should be allowed; however, the use of another
structure to represent the URL in a link may pose a copyright problem.
Because it is the
user who retrieves and views the Web page, the creator of a link to that page
is only liable for direct infringement if linking violates the copyright of the
owner of the linked page. This is hardly
conceivable, because the link only provides the user with an address, and its
only purpose is to facilitate the access to a document by providing the user
with an alternative to typing the URL of the page. Moreover, if typing a URL does not constitute copyright
infringement because it is a necessary part of viewing a Web page, then neither
does providing a link. In fact, instead
of activating a certain link by clicking on it, the user could also simply type
the URL into the browser with the same result.
Obviously, by creating a link, the content of the linked page is not
reproduced, distributed, publicly performed, or displayed.
One could argue,
however, that a link itself prepares a derivative work because it virtually
incorporates the content of the linked page into the linking page. However, since the link itself does not
reveal any part of the linked page, the user cannot possibly know the content of
the linked page, and the supposedly underlying work (the linked page) is not
recast, transformed or adapted in the sense of 17 U.S.C. § 101. The mere virtual presence ("one click
away") of the linked page does not change this fact. Indeed, a link simply appears to be an
electronic version of a reference to another work, like a citation in a law
book, for instance. No one has ever
reasonably argued that a citation "incorporates" the cited work. The technologically-improved accessibility
of the cited work does not change the nature of the citing work and, therefore,
linking does not involve the adaptation right.
For the same reasons, deep linking (which is linking into an embedded
page in a web site) does not constitute copyright infringement, even though it
might be actionable on other grounds such as unfair competition and trademark
law. Since linking does not involve any
of the rights exclusively assigned to the copyright owner and therefore does
not constitute copying, it is irrelevant whether or not the linked page
contains infringing material.
Therefore, a plain HREF3 link does not appear to directly infringe any
of the exclusive rights assigned to the copyright owner.
F. Use Of Disclaimers
And Online Contracts
The legal
significance of the disclaimer is that it is relevant to determining whether
those entities with a legal duty to protect against harms from the Site have in
fact exercised reasonable care in preventing such harms. Courts determine whether a disclaimer or
warning is adequate by applying a "reasonableness standard." In applying this standard, courts often use
as a benchmark the standard warning language used by other members of the
industry at issue.
The efficacy of a
disclaimer is governed by state law and state laws differ as does the extent to
which the courts in particular jurisdictions view such disclaimers with
favor. This uncertainty is compounded
by the fact that we are dealing in the context of new technologies, i.e.,
online use and the Internet, where the courts have only begun to grapple with
the responsibilities of website operations.
Another way to
propose limiting liability is through a website contract. The legal protection afforded by the
contract language is less certain. The
purpose of the language is, in essence, to form a contract between the
individual accessing the website and the site’s sponsor, which contract
provides for example that, in exchange for allowing an individual access to the
website, the individual acknowledges that the information is being provided
without warranty, agrees not to infringe on copyrights associated with the
website, and waives his or her right to recover damages for injuries caused by
reliance on the Site.
The courts are
divided over whether such a contract -- that is not the subject of bargaining,
but is agreed upon simply by clicking an "accept" button -- is
enforceable. Furthermore, while courts
do enforce contractual waivers of liability, they do not do so in all cases,
particularly when the liability results from recklessness or intentional
tortious acts. For example, if your company knowingly allowed incorrect
harmful information to remain on the website for an extended time, there is a
substantial possibility that the liability waiver in the contract language
would not be enforced with respect to harms resulting from such
information. Thus, contract language
may not be reliable protection against liability arising from the website. It should be remembered, however, that this
issue only becomes relevant to if your company is somehow found to have a legal
duty to the injured party.
Obviously, your
company should try, if possible, to avoid assuming any responsibility for, or
control over, the operation of the website.
This includes giving the website maintenance responsibilities to a third
party vendor and then making sure that what appears on the website has been
carefully reviewed. If practical from a
business standpoint, your company should enter into an agreement with such
third party on-line provider that contains
(a) a statement setting forth that your company has no responsibilities
concerning the content of the Site; and
(b) indemnification provisions in which a third party provider agrees to
indemnify your company for all liabilities, costs and expenses incurred in
connection with claims made against your company that are related to the
Site. While, ideally, your company may
want to avoid any liability altogether, it cannot rely only on indemnity. That is because the indemnifier must
ultimately have a deep pocket to cover court costs and attorneys fees. Often, particularly with small developers,
the price tag is too high. The company
may be better off with someone in the company making sure that the company’s
content is represented accurately.
For example, in
In Re Presstek, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) held Presstek,
Inc., a company that distributed a research analyst’s report, liable for
materially overstating Presstek’s sales and earnings outlook. In its order dated December 1997, the SEC
clearly stated that “[A]n issuer may also be liable for false statements
contained in a third-party report if it adopts, expressly or impliedly, the
statements after they are published, even if management had no role in
preparing the reports.” In re Presstek,
1997 SEC Lexis 2645. In the
Commission’s view, an issuer who knows, or is reckless in not knowing, that the
distributed information is false or misleading, cannot be insulated from
liability because management was not actively involved in the preparation of
that information. To limit this kind of
liability in Presstek-like circumstances, a company should have inside counsel
review website content on a routine basis.
Most importantly,
your website should include an appropriate disclaimer. Examples of appropriate disclaimers
abound. Here are just a few examples:
PLEASE READ THIS DISCLAIMER AND AGREEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE
ACCESSING OR USING THIS SITE. BY
ACCESSING OR USING THIS WEBSITE, YOU CERTIFY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE DISCLAIMER
AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH BELOW. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, CONTACT _____HELP
BEFORE PROCEEDING.
The Company its agents or representatives do not make any
representations as to the accuracy, completeness or correctness, timeliness or
usefulness of any information contained herein. All information contained herein is provided "AS IS"
and the company expressly disclaims making any express or implied warranties
with respect to the fitness of the information contained herein for any
particular usage, its merchantability, its application or purpose or its
non-infringement. Solely for the
purpose of providing access to information of potential utility to [website]
users, [hyper]links appear on this Site to allow direct access to such
information. The Company does not
monitor or review the content of such independently operated Sites. The inclusion of such [hyper]links is
neither intended nor understood to constitute any implied or express approval
or acceptance of the validity of the information contained in such independent
Sites and is not intended nor should it be understood by the user as an
endorsement or recommendation of any of the information, products, or
manufacturers identified in those independently operated Sites.
By accessing this forum, you agree that in no event will the company, the sponsor of this forum and any of
the business entities mentioned herein (including entities for which a
hyper-link is provided) be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made
or action taken by you or anyone else based upon or in reliance upon the
information provided through this forum.
You further agree to hold the Company, the sponsor of this forum and any
business entity mentioned herein (including entities for which a hyper-link is
provided) harmless against liability for any loss, claim, or damage arising
from your use of any of the information and ideas contained herein.
The materials provided in this forum are copyrighted and may be
downloaded and/or reprinted for PERSONAL USE ONLY. Permission to reprint or electronically reproduce any copyrighted
material, document, tradename, logo or other graphic, in whole or in part, for
any other reason is expressly prohibited, unless prior written consent is
obtained from the Company or from the owner of such material.
I have read and understand the above terms and conditions and
agree to all of them.(hit return button)
Some
considerations for specific disclaimer language for attorney includes using the
term “general information,” so that the disclaimer helps avoid problems
regarding the creation of an attorney-client privilege not to mention the
unauthorized practice of law. The
request that no information be sent until the on-line reader talks with a
lawyer may also prevent a disqualifying disclosure from a potentially adverse
party. In other words, one of your
client’s adverse party may e-mail to you a material admission.
As an
alternative, or in addition, to the disclaimer, a company may consider using a
click wrap or shrink wrap license. As Internet use has grown dramatically in
recent years, so too has the use of click wrap licensing. A click wrap or web wrap license refers to a
contract created by requiring the would-be purchaser of a digital work to
accept various usage restrictions, via a series of mouse “clicks,” before
granting access to the work, or before the information products or other
products are transferred. Specifically,
click wrap contracting involves the text of an offer presented on a computer
screen along with the license terms.
The license terms “pop up” on a screen when a program is first opened
and are not physically written down on paper.
The user looks at the terms of the agreement on his/her computer and
then manifests “unambiguous consent” by clicking a box which signals consent to
be bound by the agreement that has just passed on the screen. For example, a term of the agreement may be
that the customer-user explicitly agrees not to use the sender’s services to
transmit unsolicited commercial e mail to others (also known as “spamming”) or
to send pornographic messages.
Recurring provisions in click wrap license agreements include
proprietary rights, limitations on warranties and damages, limitations on
user’s rights, and broad disclaimers of liability.
Until recently,
the enforceability of click wrap agreements was uncertain. Departing from the
traditional contractual style, the licensor in a click wrap agreement does not
receive a signed agreement from the user, and instead relies on the consumer's
assent via the Internet, by clicking “accept.”
As a consequence, the issue that arises is whether the purchaser agreed
to the terms of the click wrap agreement, or whether these agreements are
unenforceable as a contracts of adhesion or whether such agreements are
otherwise unconscionable. More
recently, however, courts have expressly recognized the enforceability of the
click wrap agreements. See ProCD, Inc.
v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996); Hotmail Corp. v. Van$ Money Pie,
Inc., 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1020 (N.D. Cal. 1998).
G. E-mail And
Associated Risks
E-mail is the
most basic and the most useful Internet-based client relation tool. All major online services include e-mail
functions as a standard feature. E-mail
sent over the Internet from one computer to another is encoded in a common
communications protocol (TCP/IP). The
protocol allows communication between the transmitting and receiving computer,
even where the two computers are not identical. As a consequence, lawyers can send messages to any client
connected to the Internet through an e-mail address.
Companies using
e-mail have a significant competitive advantage over those that do not use
e-mail. The message reaches the
client’s computer within minutes and, unlike phone messages, the e-mail
provides the client with an instant reply.
Furthermore, sending an e-mail may mean eliminating human intermediaries
such as secretaries and postal workers, ultimately cutting down on the
company’s expenses. Because e-mail is
so cost effective, it can justify, by itself, a company’s investment in
Internet connections.
As concerns
regarding the privacy of electronic communications diminish, e-mail will be
used more aggressively by attorneys to schedule depositions, exchange
interrogatories, propose and revise contracts or agreements, and communicate
within and outside the company.
Nevertheless, downloading business files received by e-mail and
communicating with clients may be risky.
On the Internet, hate mail needs no envelopes and stamps, and
pornography needs no screen or projector.
In addition, employees can transfer records to a personal e-mail address
so that stolen data can be further redistributed or illegally used. Employees can also transmit e-mail to
others, whether or not they use the same online service or regardless of their
location within or outside the United States.
Because most e-mail services allow the user to “attach” computer files,
including text, sound, video, graphics, or entire computer programs, virtually
any form of intellectual property may be endangered by e-mail. Finally, to get of e-mail takes more than
erasing it from your inbox. Your
company’s server may have a backup of the message. Another copy of the message may also exist at the internet
service provider’s computer. Finally
copies of the message may remain on the other party’s computer.
Moreover, the
attorney’s duty to protect confidential information is a major concern among
most attorneys who communicate with clients through e-mail. The duty of confidentiality arises from
Disciplinary Rule DR 4-101 of the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility,
which imposes the obligation that an attorney “not reveal a confidence or
secret of his client” unless the client consents after consultation. At present, attorneys are concerned that
e-mail messages may not be protected by the attorney-client privilege because
e-mail may not be considered to fall in the category of communications made in
confidence, rendering them unprivileged.
These privacy concerns are unsupported, however. E-mail is more difficult to intercept than a
phone conversation from an office phone, the use of which is not considered to
be violating the duty of confidentiality.
Furthermore, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA)
makes intercepting e-mail messages a criminal offense and expressly provides
that any intercepted e-mail message retains its character as a privileged
communication. Finally, encryption
programs are available to improve the security of private transmission because
they prevent a message from being read by those who do not have decoding
capabilities.
Although concerns
for protecting e-mail messages from hackers and service providers are
significant, the issue of employers’ monitoring employees’ e-mail has stirred
more debate. Employers are interested
in regulating employees’ e-mail to ensure that employees are not using e-mail
to divulge proprietary information, harass other employees, create a hostile
work environment, or expose the employers for liability for libel, slander,
defamation, or copyright infringement.
To improve their ability to access employees’ e-mail, employers may
implement comprehensive policies governing e-mail use. Informing employees that the employer may
monitor e-mail messages may create an implicit consent by the employee to this
action. Under the ECPA, the
communicator’s consent acquits a party of liability. Knowledge of the employer’s intent to monitor messages also decreases
an employee’s expectation of privacy.
H. If You End Up In
Court – Where Is Electronic Jurisdiction
The Internet
lacks geographical boundaries. Not
surprisingly, the speed of adoption of the Internet by its users has far
outpaced most states’ attempts to adapt their substantive laws to the new
medium. Because traditional legal
principles are not always applicable in cyberspace, substantive issues such as
personal and subject matter jurisdiction in Internet e-mail cases and websites
have already arisen in Internet-related disputes.
Attorneys’
practicing in another state without a license will become a very debated
Internet topic. Law firms that take
advantage of Internet technology and websites will be able to deliver legal
services anywhere in the United States at a cheaper cost than local firms. Additionally, e-mail, video-conferencing and
other new technologies suggest that a local physical presence will be less of a
factor in favoring local counsel. State
ethical legislators have power to regulate only the attorneys licensed in that
particular state. An interesting issue
is whether rules applying to websites that have been created in particularly
restrictive states such as Texas, California, and Florida apply to all law firm
websites, since these websites are available in these states as well as the
rest of the United States. Finally,
attorneys in large firms licensed in one state may be also licensed to practice
in the state where the firm’s office is located, for example Virginia. In this scenario, is the entire Virginia
firm subject to the other state’s laws because of that attorney? Should California regulate the non-resident
firm’s website only if the firm has significant and continuing representation
of California citizens? These are just
a few questions without answers.
A general theme
to building your website on the Internet is that to a certain extent your
company may be entering uncharted legal waters. While the purpose of this article is not to raise concerns, it is
also worthwhile to raise awareness that many legal questions remain to be
resolved. Thus, minimizing your risks
in some of the ways noted above, may be the only practical answer available as
this new technology continues to unfold.
Endnotes
1 The suffix “com”
is used for commercial entities. “Edu”
is used for educational institutions and “gov” for governmental
organizations. “Org” is used for
organizations, usually nonprofit, “mil” for military and “net” for networks.
2 Under 17 U.S.C.
§101 a work made for hire is either a contribution to a collective work, a part
of a motion picture or other audio visual work, a translation, a supplementary
work, a compiliation, an instructional text, a test, answer material for a test
or an atlas.
3 “HREF,” or
Hypertext Reference, link is a specific code that includes the URL of the Web
page to be retrieved upon activation of the link. An HREF link to the home page of another Web site is known as
“surface link,” while an HREF link below the home page level is known as a
“deep link.”
About the Author
Jon Grossman practices in the area of Computer Law with a focus on
Intellectual Property issues including the acquisition of Patents and
Copyrights. Other areas of work include
computer-related licensing, export control and business counseling with respect
to intellectual property. Mr. Grossman
is also an Adjunct Professor at the Johns Hopkins University where he has
taught for several years in the area of high technology law. Mr. Grossman has lectured extensively on
issues pertaining to intellectual property law.
He received his BA from the University of Chicago (1977), his MS
in Computer Science from the Johns Hopkins University (1982) and his JD from
the American University (1986). Mr.
Grossman is a member of the Bar of Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and
is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
----------------------------------