Well, gadzooks. Following on from my last post here, I went exploring and checking my compliance with the detail of the CIPR social media guidelines.

The guidelines have been substantially revised this year and now form part of my professional Code of Conduct. They point out to PR practitioners the need to bear in mind the potential legal issues surrounding the use of social media, including the laws on copyright and intellectual property.

And thus, on investigation, it looks like I'm breaking the law at every turn - and chances are, so is everyone else who is writing a blog, putting links on their website, tweeting about interesting stuff in the press, or even emailing each other links to something worth reading.

I'm talking about 'deep linking', the practice of creating hyperlinks that go direct to a site's interior pages rather than just the home page. We do this all the time - for example, if I tell you there's something fabulous you must read on Building's website, I am highly likely to post a link that takes you directly there, not just link you to www.building.co.uk and leave you to try and fish out the relevant page yourself.

As one of the leading authorities on the Internet, Jakob Neilson, has written: "Deep linking is good linking... A website is like a house with a million entrances: the front door is simply one among many ways to get in. A good website will accommodate visitors who choose alternative routes... Deep linking is your friend: it gets users to their preferred destination as quickly as possible."

But it also turns out to be contrary to the 'Terms of Use' of almost all the websites we checked out today: Here's just a very brief selection:

• www.architectsjournal.co.uk - "We welcome hot links to the home page of our website, but not 'deep linking' by which we mean that you may not include a link to any page of our website that is not the home page." (The same goes for cnplus, nceplus and the other sites operated by Emap).
• www.building.co.uk - "Any link to this website without our written permission is prohibited. Notwithstanding authorisation to link to this website, linking to any page other that the initial start page of www.building.co.uk is prohibited...." (The same goes for BD, BSD and the other sites operated by UBM).
• www.telegraph.co.uk - "You must not deeplink to... the site without our prior written permission."
• www.timesonline.co.uk - "...in accessing [our] websites, you agree not to... set up links to any microsite, except the home page of the website, without our express written permission..."

But wait...Hoorah, a solitary voice of sanity:

• www.ft.com: "A site or service that links to FT.com may link to the home page.. and on an ad hoc, non-systematic basis deeplink to other pages of FT.com..."

Both Contract Journal and the Guardian also seem marvellously free of convoluted T&Cs on linking too, unless I've missed something.

Unsurprisingly, it turns out that there is still a lot of legal debate on this issue. Reviewing case law is not my forte, but allegedly (a good legal term), linking to news items on a site owned by a newspaper or other news provider is particularly problematic, and this has been prone to litigation both in the EU and States.

So what to do? "Sue me, punk" is one thought that jumps to mind - the law's an ass, and in the right mood I'm always up for a good fight against nonsense like this. But for now, I think we shall probably have to contact all the key media we link to and ask permission to link to news stories rather than just the home page. I'll let you know how we get on - it will be an interesting exercise in its own right. In the meantime, expect to see more links than usual to FT.com until it's sorted.

Got any other advice? Please do let me know if you have been affected by the issues raised in this story, as the BBC might say.

Just like the snow storms over the South East today, there has been a flurry of activity and comment recently on the topic of the relationship between blogging, social media and public relations (including media relations):

• The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (my professional institute) updated its Social Media Guidelines.
  
• At the same time, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising published its social media research paper.
• PR guru and veteran blogger Stuart Bruce was one of the first to comment, pointing to critical reviews of both publications by other PR experts and asking whether separate guidelines were even necessary, over and above the CIPR Code of Conduct.
• Sustainable building expert Mel Starrs also alerted me the other day to a post by Adam Singer on PR and its interactions with the blogosphere, which in turn took me off reading Louis Gray's comment on the relationship between PR companies and bloggers... and I could have gone on reading well into the night.

This topic will have been (and will surely continue to be) the topic of choice for every bright young thing on the CIPR Diploma, and I'm not going to attempt any sort of academic analysis of this still-drifting issue.

Nor am I going to get into blogging just about, well, blogging. That would be of very little interest to my clients and other Footings fans.

However, let me pull out a few points from the CIPR guidelines that you might find of interest:

The CIPR Code of Conduct is very clear on what you, the client, should expect from me, the PR professional. It is all based around three principles: Integrity, Competence and Confidentiality.

Taking them in reverse order:

Confidentiality is an absolute given. In any activities, whether I'm 'on duty' or not, and whether a client is past, present or future, privileged information stays confidential. In social media terms, that means no tweets, blog posts or online hints about what's not for the public domain.

Competence is clearly essential too - if I'm going to advise my clients about the use and impact of social media, I need to understand it (and use it) myself. I'm giving it a fair shot, as you can see! But I will always say if we are getting towards the limits of our professional competence, and I can pass you on to the specialist associates we work with.

Integrity is the slightly puzzling one when it comes to social media. Obviously I get it when the CIPR stresses the need for accuracy and honesty. That's a no brainer, as my kids would say. But the requirements for openness and disclosure do get a bit complex (and possibly over-cooked in places).

As a general rule, I always err on the side of total disclosure. Unlike many 'normal users' of social media, PR professionals are required to be completely up front about their identity, their interests and any potential conflicts of interest. No 'ghost' blogs, no false representation on blogs or other social media sites etc. I do not have multiple profiles on Twitter, for example - it's @lizmale or nothing I'm afraid.

But I have to admit that I find it a bit galling that I am recommended by the CIPR to state my profession even when 'off duty' - if I'm posting a comment on another blog unrelated to my work, for example. ("My name's Liz and I'm in PR. Liked last week's recipe, Nigella..." Yuk, that feels horrid.)

I do have personal views, political views even, that I want to air and that I should be able to express anonymously if necessary. Thankfully, it's rare that I would find it awkward not to put my name next to any viewpoint, and if a comment could impact on my clients or colleagues in any way then it's just not going to happen in the first place. But yes, I do discuss some issues online using a pseudonym. So long as I can demonstrate my integrity to the CIPR Disciplinary Committee (should that ever become necessary, God forbid), it should be ok.

Anyway, I think it is true that, in time, it will seem very odd that the CIPR has issued guidelines on the use of social media (there aren't separate guidelines interpreting the Code of Conduct for financial PR, for example).

But given that so many PR people are social media newbies just like me, I think some attempt at pinning down the implications are very helpful in places.

For example, I probably would not have considered so carefully the legal issues about quoting from others, or the need to check other websites' terms of use to see whether I am allowed to 'deep link', ie. create direct links to web pages deep within their sites instead of just linking to the Home page.

That particular point was quite a shock actually. In fact, I think I'd better do a quick check on previous posts before I get into trouble... excuse me a minute