iFrame ettiquette

[Wings]

I put a state highway conditions page into my page on hiking, via an iframe,
as highway conditions were important to our groups bi-weekly hiking trips.
However, I've been somewhat uncomfortable over this. Just what are the
ettiquette rules for grabbing someone else's page to enhance your own? One
part of me says they should be happy for the exposure, but I realize that I
am using them for my own purposes. Yes, I could link to them. but their page
works so well with mine. Any comments in this regard? Is there a site
dedicated to questions like this?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Jim Higson]

I put a state highway conditions page into my page on hiking, via an
iframe, as highway conditions were important to our groups bi-weekly
hiking trips. However, I've been somewhat uncomfortable over this. Just
what are the ettiquette rules for grabbing someone else's page to enhance
your own? One part of me says they should be happy for the exposure, but I
realize that I am using them for my own purposes. Yes, I could link to
them. but their page works so well with mine. Any comments in this regard?
Is there a site dedicated to questions like this?

So long as you aren't passing your content off as theirs, I don't see why
anyone would mind. If you want to make sure, why not just ask them?

 

[mbstevens]

I put a state highway conditions page into my page on hiking, via an iframe,
as highway conditions were important to our groups bi-weekly hiking trips.
However, I've been somewhat uncomfortable over this. Just what are the
ettiquette rules for grabbing someone else's page to enhance your own? One
part of me says they should be happy for the exposure, but I realize that I
am using them for my own purposes. Yes, I could link to them. but their page
works so well with mine. Any comments in this regard? Is there a site
dedicated to questions like this?

I think you should at least ask their permission before framing
it. An iframe gives the impression that the content is yours.
Many people even insert JS code into their pages just to keep
people from framing their content. I've been known to do it.

And then there's the other issue -- for internet use frames are
just no good.

 

[IWP506]

IMO, as long as you let your viewers know that it's not yours, and tell
them whose it is, it's fine.

 

[PeterMcC]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in

IMO, as long as you let your viewers know that it's not yours, and
tell them whose it is, it's fine.

There have been a couple of similar responses and I'd caution against acting
on that basis without getting qualified advice.

 

[SpaceGirl]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in



There have been a couple of similar responses and I'd caution against acting
on that basis without getting qualified advice.

Who says the advice in here isn't qualified?

I'd go with getting permission. And I AM qualified


--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.

 

[Morgan]

I put a state highway conditions page into my page on hiking, via an iframe,
as highway conditions were important to our groups bi-weekly hiking trips.
However, I've been somewhat uncomfortable over this. Just what are the
ettiquette rules for grabbing someone else's page to enhance your own? One
part of me says they should be happy for the exposure, but I realize that I
am using them for my own purposes. Yes, I could link to them. but their page
works so well with mine. Any comments in this regard? Is there a site
dedicated to questions like this?

Thanks in advance.

In legal terms, there is a concept called fair use which applies to
internet content/copyright.

Basically if you use the information for a non-profit purpose you're
ok. If however you use the information that isn't your content in a
profit context of any kind you could be sued, even if you just copied a
simple gif image from the site.

(In which case ask them, and then if they don't give it, you'll have to
make up your own content.)

See this link for more info on it.

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm

 

[JDS]

So long as you aren't passing your content off as theirs, I don't see why
anyone would mind. If you want to make sure, why not just ask them?

How about the fact that he is using their bandwidth as his own? Even these
days, bandwidth still costs money

 

[Jim Higson]

How about the fact that he is using their bandwidth as his own? Even these
days, bandwidth still costs money

I said "So long as you aren't passing your content off as theirs". Anyway,
the question is mute - just ask if they mind.

Jim

 

[Morgan]

How about the fact that he is using their bandwidth as his own? Even these

days, bandwidth still costs money.

Excellent point. The site owners are unlikely to be happy about this
if they are paying for their brandwidth.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Excellent point. The site owners are unlikely to be happy about this
if they are paying for their brandwidth.

Check past discussion for "bandwidth leeches". I've only felt the need to
do this once, and that was for an image that was being called out many
thousands of times by a page in the far east - so much so that this one
URL showed up as a peak in the entire server statistics!

But I surmise it can work for frames too.

There are measures that the victim can take, based on the Referer(sic)
header. While of course there's no guarantee that the Referer header will
be present (so, the victim has to allow the item to be served out if it's
missing), if that header is present then it'll mostly be the truth, so if
it doesn't match one's own site then something else can be served out in
its place (an HTTP error[1], or a rude picture, whatever - it's limited
only by one's imagination). Once this is in place, there's little point
in the offender continuing to call it out - a few of their visitors will
see the right thing, but most of them will get the error (or the rude
picture, whatever). The victim's own pages, of course, still work just
fine.

[1] 410 if you want to be protocol-correct ;-)

 

[Wings]

Thanks to everyone who replied. I'm going to take the suggestion to just ask
them. I'll post the reply here if there's anything in it of interest.

To those who think this is bandwidth theft, I can't agree, and is the reason
I didn't just ask in the first case. We aren't, for example, just stealing
an image without the site content. We're displaying the site, and after all,
the site is there because they want people to see it - so whether they come
through me to get to his provider, or directly, is a mute point as to
bandwidth use. I.e., I previously had a link to them and my users would go
there and use the bandwidth anyhow.

As for objections against using iFrames, I hear you., but I'm not that good
at this and haven't a clue as to how else one would go about doing it. But
the question is rather mute as the site is for the use of a group of about
15 people only - it isn't a commercial site - and none of them have any
problems at the page. I think we're all microsoft serfs (grin).

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

... is a mute point ...

I've seen this phrase twice in the last couple of minutes.

It is a *moot* point.

 

[Els]

I've seen this phrase twice in the last couple of minutes.

It is a *moot* point.

<g>

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Status Quo - ROADHOUSE - Roadhouse Blues - The Wanderer
- Marguerita Time - Living On An Island - Break The Rules

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Beauregard T. Shagnasty quothed:

I've seen this phrase twice in the last couple of minutes.

It is a *moot* point.

Ya, das ist goot.

 

[Els]

With neither quill nor qualm, Beauregard T. Shagnasty quothed:


Ya, das ist goot.

While we're on a correction spree; that should be "Ja, daß ist gut."
(and if that character doesn't work: "dass ist gut")

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

While we're on a correction spree; that should be "Ja, daß ist gut."
(and if that character doesn't work: "dass ist gut")

Thereby proving the usenet rule that every spelling correction will
contain at least one spelling error.

bon soir

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:

While we're on a correction spree; that should be "Ja, daß ist gut."
(and if that character doesn't work: "dass ist gut")

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuusssse me!

Besides, I was typing phonetically.

 

[X l e c t r i c]

All of you got it wrong.

It should be:

Yo, dat be good.

I'm talkin' bout talkin' good etiquette here.

 

[Wings]

Holy sweepstakes! You are correct! I want the head of that linguistically
challenged ape who led me astray!