

Linking to any web page on this Web site is prohibited - fintler
http://www.victoriassecret.com/site-terms-and-notices/

======
DanBC
> 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".

A notable example is from the UK: The Shetland Times vs The Shetland News
([http://www.linksandlaw.com/linkingcases-
deeplinks.htm#Shetla...](http://www.linksandlaw.com/linkingcases-
deeplinks.htm#Shetland) 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...](http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO52GBWX?opendocument&SKN=1))

> [...] _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?

~~~
wpnx
I'd love to know what the link between Victoria's secret and British American
Tobacco is.

~~~
eli
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.

------
adambenayoun
I've seen similar restrictions in other websites and I could argue that the
lawyers writing these TOS are either clueless about SEO or very aware of how
SEO works (I know I am citing the 2 opposite but I'm explaining why below).

Clueless about SEO: I have no idea why a website would like to limit another
site from linking to it. It is counterintuitive and would likely go against
the same site's SEO strategy.

Aware of how SEO works: I could argue that lawyer knows how SEO works and are
just trying to cover their assess if they'll need a link removed in the future
(I doubt they'll never use that clause legally against someone unless they
really need to). Why would they need to? I've heard of some black hat SEO
stories where certain individuals would link with a farm of sites that are
either flagged or irrelevant to another site all in hope to get it flagged or
down in google ranks. I'm not sure if that would work and could question the
motivation of these individuals but I've even personally witnessed trackbacks
and links from "porn" sites and irrelevant sites to my website and blog. These
lawyers could potentially use that clause to sue that individual without
having to prove there have been any damages from the links.

I would go with option A however since I'm not sure this is the case here.

------
wellthat
Context matters hugely. Here is their full Linking section, which does not
include anything from the title:

"

Periodically, links may be established from this Web Site to one or more
external web sites or resources operated by third parties (the "Third Party
Sites"). These links are provided for your convenience only. In addition,
certain Third Party Sites also may provide links to this Web Site. None of
such links should be deemed to imply that Victoria's Secret endorses the Third
Party Sites or any content therein.

We do not control and are not responsible or liable for any Third Party Sites
or any content, advertising, products, or other materials on or available
through such Third Party Sites. Access to any Third Party Sites is at your own
risk and we will have no liability arising out of or related to such web sites
and/or their content or for any damages or loss caused or alleged to be caused
by or in connection with any purchase, use of or reliance on any such content,
goods, or services available on or through any such Third Party Site.

"

It seems fine to me. The text in the title actually is the following special
section:

"

Special Notice

We have a no-tolerance policy regarding the use of our trademarks or names
(e.g., of Victoria's Secret, Victoria's Secret Pink, or Pink Nation) in
metatags and/or hidden text. Specifically, the use of our trademarks or names
in metatag keywords is trademark infringement, and the use of trademarks or
names in page text, metatags, and/or hidden text for purposes of gaining
higher rankings from search engines is unfair competition. 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.

"

This seems quite reasonable to me. Apparently, spammers must be getting their
pages higher for searches of Victoria's Secret than the site itself is at.

I think the policy is perfectly reasonable in context, and I think anyone
reading this knows exactly what VS is talking about.

~~~
mgkimsal
" Linking to any web page on this Web site is prohibited absent our express
written permission. "

That still doesn't seem reasonable to me. Simply making this link:
<http://www.victoriassecret.com/site-terms-and-notices/> is linking to a web
page on that site and I didn't, in fact, get their express written permission.
Does that 'prohibition' seem reasonable?

------
rlio
The relevent text, for the lazy:

> We have a no-tolerance policy regarding the use of our trademarks or names
> (e.g., of Victoria's Secret, Victoria's Secret Pink, or Pink Nation) in
> metatags and/or hidden text. Specifically, the use of our trademarks or
> names in metatag keywords is trademark infringement, and the use of
> trademarks or names in page text, metatags, and/or hidden text for purposes
> of gaining higher rankings from search engines is unfair competition.
> 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.

~~~
greenyoda
Would the law actually consider the use of a trademark inside a meta tag,
where people couldn't see it, to be an infringement? Has this legal theory
ever been tested in a court?

~~~
antidoh
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=meta+tag+trademark>

~~~
greenyoda
It looks like it depends on the context. If your web page is actually making a
statement about Victoria's Secret (e.g., "our products are as good as theirs,
but cheaper"), then it looks like putting their trademark into your meta tag
would be allowed as fair use. But just adding their trademark to your meta tag
to get a hit when someone searches for them could be considered infringement,
since you're using the trademark to confuse the consumer into believing that
your site is somehow associated with their trademark.

------
ColinWright
So this submission is, itself, against the terms and conditions.

In case you're wondering, the specific sentence is in the section called
"Special Notice" and the sentences starts with the word "Linking"

------
henryw
It probably has something to do with the sentence preceding it about SEO.

"Specifically, the use of our trademarks or names in metatag keywords is
trademark infringement, and the use of trademarks or names in page text,
metatags, and/or hidden text for purposes of gaining higher rankings from
search engines is unfair competition."

~~~
Xylakant
This clause itself may be void depending on where you are. You might be liable
by law, but what's the point having the clause in the TOS where you can never
prove that the infringer ever saw the TOS, let alone accepted it.

------
JosephRedfern
They're not the only ones.
[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Linking%20to%20any%20we...](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Linking%20to%20any%20web%20page%20on%20this%20Web%20site%20is%20prohibited%20absent%20our%20express%20written%20permission.%22)

------
discountgenius
Did OP just break the Victoria's Secret Web Site Terms, Conditions and
Notices? Were it enforceable, what sort of penalty could OP face?

~~~
greenyoda
Did the OP ever agree to the terms and conditions for this web site? There is
no legal contract unless it's voluntarily agreed to by both parties, and when
you go to victoriassecret.com, there's nothing that says "click here to
confirm that you agree to the terms of this web site".

------
tibbon
So here's an interesting legal question- do you 'own' the full URL to a
website by registering the domain?

I have never been to the Victoria's Secret website, so I have not read their
TOS. Yet, if I see a link on a page (say, these comments) and I re-link to it
(<http://www.victoriassecret.com/shoes>), am I in violation of their TOS?

Do they have _any_ legal ground to stand on to stop me from posting this link?
If millions of others post similar links, and they don't defend against those,
does it show that they have less of a case?

This all seems absurd to me. My guess is that its posturing on VS's part, and
while they might send out some nastygrams from their legal team, they probably
wouldn't get far in court if they tried to press the issue more.

~~~
jlogsdon
It seems to be you would just be "renting" the URL. You "rent" a domain on a
yearly basis from the registrar which "owns" it.

------
mblake
Does this mean that Google is violating their terms by listing them in search
results? I think someone from Google should maybe try to comply with this, I
bet VS will be thrilled ;)

------
egypturnash
I wonder if they seriously have a use case where it is BAD to link to this
site, or if it's just some crazy-ass boilerplate cut and paste from a document
written in 1997.

~~~
adambenayoun
It's probably a copy-paste but here's a use case:

A bunch of bad/flagged sites that link to victoria secret in attempt to get it
flagged too and get sandboxed by google.

------
javajosh
No, that's ridiculous. You can't stop people from linking to your site.
However, on the off chance the paperwork will be hand-delivered by a VS model:

<http://www.victoriassecret.com/shoes>

------
kylemaxwell
Apparently Victoria would like her web site to remain a Secret.

------
pdog
I ♥ Karlie Kloss!

[http://pink.victoriassecret.com/m/pink_hearts/image.jsp?imag...](http://pink.victoriassecret.com/m/pink_hearts/image.jsp?image_id=46&category_id=6)

------
downandout
This is just an educated guess, but I am fairly certain that this wouldn't
hold up in a US court if they were to sue over it. Banning something as broad
as a link to a website would probably run into serious first amendment issues.
Further, they probably would never sue over it, because once they test in in
court and lose, then the clause is demonstrably invalid. If it's never tested,
they can still use it in C&D notices to try to intimidate people.

------
codingninja
I doubt they strictly enforce this. It's most likely there so they have the
power to have links removed if they think it is hurting their rep.

------
teeja
Oddly enough, if everyone complies with their wishes, there will be no way to
discover or get to their website. Suits me fine.

~~~
mmahemoff
In a world where this clause mattered, people can still link if they have
consent and VS can still advertise it themselves.

------
eli
Not exactly a new phenomenon. Who remembers Microsoft Sidewalk?

Ticketmaster and Microsoft Settle Suit on Internet Linking (1999).
[http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/15/business/ticketmaster-
and-...](http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/15/business/ticketmaster-and-
microsoft-settle-suit-on-internet-linking.html)

------
hownottowrite
I just want to know what they mean in the next section by:

"We may, but are not obligated to, use-in any way we see fir-any ideas,
concepts, know-how, text, photographs, images or techniques..."

Is "seeing fir" a Christmas thing? And what exactly is their position on
tinsel? I think more lawyers are needed.

------
gesman
I think too many businesses are misunderstanding differences between laws and
their self-written self-fullfilling TOS-es and policies. In other words not
following someone's TOS is not illegal and cannot be prohibited by the
business itself, unless it somehow conflicts with country laws.

------
kiallmacinnes
So.. Does Google obey these TOS? And - are they obliged to?

~~~
jvm
Looks like they are implicitly permitting google via robots.txt:

<http://www.victoriassecret.com/robots.txt>

    
    
        User-agent: ia_archiver    
        Disallow: /    
    
        User-agent: *    
        Disallow: /commerce/application?namespace=shoppingBag&origin=myMain.jsp&event=link.viewBag    
        Disallow: /commerce/logoff.vs    
        Disallow: /commerce/signin.vs    
        Disallow: /commerce/registration.vs    
        Disallow: /commerce/logon.vs    
        Disallow: /commerce/addressbook/index.jsp    
        Disallow: /commerce/changePasswordJsf.vs    
    
        Sitemap: http://www.victoriassecret.com/sitemap.xml

------
readme
You have violated the TOS by linking to the TOS.

------
austenallred
Well, that's not exactly going to help the SEO

~~~
neumann_alfred
Hah! So one might think.. but right now they're linked from HN, with more
links in the discussion. I never was to that site before, and probably never
would have if it wasn't for this story. Like here, it's going to be linked on
a lot of blogs, forums etc. that would otherwise not have linked to it. They
can change whatever they want about their TOS and robots.txt any time they
wish; most of those links will stay for a long, long time.

This is either very stupid or very smart; or maybe so stupid it wraps around
to smart.

------
treskot
Wait! Didn't you just violate their TOS?

------
meerita
Victoria told me a secret. I know Victoria's secret. Sue me.

