> Linking to any web page on this Web site is prohibited absent our express written permission. Associating or juxtaposing our Web site or its Materials (e.g., through framing or inline linking) with advertisements and/or other information not originating from our Web site is expressly prohibited.
There are a bunch of websites with similar "restrictions".
> [...] and you may make use of the embedded share button and Email a Friend functions to share parts of this website via the particular social media networks or by email (using the Email a Friend function) as applicable. Other than as stated in these conditions of use, you may not make any part of the website available as part of another website, whether by hyperlink framing on the Internet or otherwise unless you have been authorised to do so in writing by British American Tobacco.
Victoria's Secret's restrictions sound like they are trying to prevent someone from making a lingerie porn site consisting of nothing but penis enlargement ads and Victoria's Secret catalog photos.
British American Tobacco may be trying to ensure they aren't liable for someone else presenting material from their site in a way that violates restrictions on tobacco advertising. When it comes to law, I'm never sure whether it's a case of too many lawyers or sensible paranoia.
To explore this idea a little further, if you download and host the lingerie porn, then this is obviously copyright infringement. But it's not clear if you only hotlink to the images, which may be what VS is trying to prevent here. Since they can't, they'd have to sue to try to enforce this license agreement.
Were I the defense attorney in that lawsuit, I'd say VS can change the URL of their images whenever they want, CDN cache invalidation notwithstanding.
How is it illegal to utter the words [XYZ]? A hyperlink is informational gibberish, its not a work of art in any way, not sure it should be copy-rightable (you cant copyright a public street address, for exampl). Its not a trademark (not public mark). Its not a trade-secret (once I know it). Or is it one of these things? Is this TOS some sort of confidentiality agreement?
Both gave too much weight to the advice of their in-house counsel?
I bet they have that silly legal footer at the bottom of their outgoing email about how you have to delete the message if you aren't the intended recipient.
There are a bunch of websites with similar "restrictions".
A notable example is from the UK: The Shetland Times vs The Shetland News (http://www.linksandlaw.com/linkingcases-deeplinks.htm#Shetla... Times v. Shetland News) Mentioned on the talk page of the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Shetland_Times)
British American Tobacco is a good example of a site from a company with too many lawyers: (http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive...)
> [...] and you may make use of the embedded share button and Email a Friend functions to share parts of this website via the particular social media networks or by email (using the Email a Friend function) as applicable. Other than as stated in these conditions of use, you may not make any part of the website available as part of another website, whether by hyperlink framing on the Internet or otherwise unless you have been authorised to do so in writing by British American Tobacco.
Guess I've just broken their TOS?