How does factually.co choose what sources to link? Cab factually ever accidentally link to illegal links?
Executive summary
Factually.co’s public linking practices are not described in the supplied sources; available reporting does not mention Factually.co’s internal link-selection rules or whether it has ever linked to illegal content (not found in current reporting). Legal precedent and commentary show that linking can be non-infringing in many jurisdictions but that courts have carved exceptions where a linker knew or should have known the target was illegal — notably a European decision that can impose liability when a for‑profit publisher links to clearly infringing material and had knowledge [1]. Japanese and common‑law discussions likewise note linking usually isn’t copying but may incur liability in exceptional cases [2] [3].
1. How the law frames “linking” and why that matters
Courts and commentators generally treat a hyperlink differently from making a copy: most precedents say posting a link is not the same as copying the underlying work, and so linking by itself is often not copyright infringement [3]. But that legal comfort is qualified: some rulings and legal analysts warn that linking to clearly unauthorized material can be treated as “communication to the public” or as aiding infringement when the linker knew the content was illegal or when the link materially facilitates access to infringing material [1] [2].
2. The European turning point: knowledge and “communication to the public”
A European court decision described in reporting holds that a clickable link to illegally published content can constitute a “communication to the public” if the linker is a for‑profit publisher and knew the material was unauthorized. That ruling shifts a burden onto linking publishers to investigate whether the linked content is authorized, and suggests liability is possible when knowledge of illegality exists [1]. SearchEngineLand characterized the rule as placing a heavy investigatory burden on search engines and publishers operating in Europe [1].
3. National nuances and exceptional liability — examples from Japan
Japanese cases and commentary show similar nuance: while URLs themselves aren’t copyrighted and surface/deep linking is generally tolerated, Japanese courts have signaled exceptions where linking to an illegal site could be treated as aiding infringement. One Osaka District Court ruling removed a link once illegality became apparent and suggested rare circumstances might trigger liability [2]. The bottom line in these analyses is that linking law is not uniformly defined and national courts vary [2].
4. What this means for a site like Factually.co (based on available sources)
Available sources do not mention Factually.co’s link‑selection policy or any instance of it linking to illegal content (not found in current reporting). Given the legal landscape shown in the sources, a risk‑aware publisher would ordinarily: avoid linking to content that is manifestly illegal, remove links promptly when illegality is flagged, and document reasonable steps taken to verify linked material — measures courts have considered relevant in the cited jurisprudence [1] [2].
5. Competing perspectives and practical trade‑offs
Legal scholars and practitioners disagree about how onerous the duty to investigate should be. Some see the European rule as necessary to protect rights‑holders; others warn it assigns search engines and publishers near‑impossible policing duties and chills linking that powers the open web [1]. Law Stack Exchange commentary reflects the prevailing practical view that most linking is lawful and embedding or deep linking raises more complex questions, but it also acknowledges outlier cases and unresolved appellate disputes [3].
6. What reporters and readers should watch next
Monitor jurisdictional developments and specific publisher practices: future appellate decisions and national rulings will clarify how far “knowledge” and “for‑profit linking” extend [1]. Also watch whether fact‑checking and aggregation sites publish explicit link‑policies or transparency reports — those disclosures would be the only sourceable way to show how Factually.co or peers choose links (available sources do not mention such disclosures by Factually.co).
Limitations: This analysis relies solely on the provided sources; it does not draw on any internal Factually.co documents or reporting because those are not in the supplied material (not found in current reporting).