Can I Put a Link to Another Website on My Website?

Yes. You can link to another website without asking permission. A link points at a public address and copies nothing, and the EU's top court ruled in 2014 that linking to freely available pages needs no authorisation. The real limits are narrow: paid links must be marked sponsored or nofollow, and don't frame content or bypass paywalls.

You're probably writing a post, want to cite someone else's guide or study, and have a nagging feeling you should email them first. You don't need to. The interesting questions are the few situations where linking gets complicated, and what outbound links do to your own SEO.

Do I need permission to link to another website?

No, not for an ordinary link to a public page. The clearest ruling is the Court of Justice of the European Union's decision in Svensson (case C-466/12, 13 February 2014), summarised by Columbia University's Global Freedom of Expression project: a site may link to works that are freely accessible elsewhere without the copyright holder's consent, because the link reaches no "new public".

The logic is simple. A link is an address, not content. When you link to a page, the destination server delivers its own content, under its own terms, with its own ads and analytics. You haven't reproduced anyone's work.

This is why link permission requests are rare in practice, and why most site owners are glad to receive links: a link sends them traffic.

A few sites publish "linking policies" demanding you request approval first. Treat them as a preference to be aware of rather than a rule you're bound by for simply referencing an address; don't organise your site around them.

Where linking actually gets complicated

The edge cases are about copying, endorsing or circumventing, not about the link itself. There are four worth knowing:

Framing and embedding. Displaying someone else's page or media inside your own layout, so it looks like your content, is a different act from linking to it, and it's where disputes happen. Embedding an official YouTube video is fine, because the platform provides the embed and the rights holder chose to publish there. Wrapping someone's article in your frame is not.

Linking to infringing or illegal material. Knowingly pointing users to pirated files, leaked data or illegal content can create liability, especially when done for profit. Linking in good faith to something you didn't know was infringing is treated very differently from running a link index for pirated content.

Deep linking around a paywall. Linking to a specific interior page is normal. Routing users around a paywall is not: the Svensson judgment says the position is different where a link lets users circumvent restrictions such as access limited to paying subscribers.

Defamation by association. Linking to a false, damaging claim while endorsing it can carry the same risk as saying it. The link isn't the problem; your endorsement is.

One honest caveat: this is general information about how linking works, not legal advice. If you're dealing with a specific dispute or a takedown notice, talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction.

The rule that trips up more sites than the law does

What actually gets sites in trouble is Google's spam policy on paid links, not a court. Google's spam policies list "exchanging money for links" and "exchanging goods or services for links" as link spam, and state that such links are fine as long as they carry rel="nofollow" or rel="sponsored".

So if you were paid to place a link (money, free product, an affiliate commission, a sponsorship), mark it:

<a href="https://example.com" rel="sponsored">Our sponsor</a>

Also use rel="ugc" or nofollow on links your users submit (comments, forum posts, profiles), since you didn't vouch for those. Dofollow vs nofollow links covers when each attribute applies.

Most people worry about the imaginary legal risk and ignore the actual policy risk sitting in their affiliate footer.

Do outbound links hurt your SEO?

No. Relevant outbound links to credible sources help readers and give Google context, and the fear that they "leak" authority has made a lot of sites worse.

The myth is that links drain a finite tank, so you should never link out. Refusing to link doesn't concentrate anything. What it does is make your page look like it was written by someone who has never read anything. Google's own link best practices say external links "can help establish trustworthiness (for example, citing your sources)".

Where outbound links do hurt:

Linking to spam. Consistently pointing at low-quality or hacked sites tells Google what neighbourhood you're in.
Selling followed links. The policy violation above.
A wall of unrelated links. Google's spam policies name "partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking", the old /links.html pattern.

As an example, a 1,500-word guide that cites 8 sources is entirely normal; a 400-word post with 30 links to unrelated sites is not. If you're unsure how many is reasonable, how many outbound links per page covers the numbers. Link out freely to things worth reading. Just don't sell the signal.

Linking out on purpose: what it's worth to you

Once you accept that outbound links are safe, they become a tool for starting relationships. Site owners notice who sends them traffic, and a genuine, well-placed link to someone's work is the warmest opening you have for a conversation that may end in them linking back. That's why finding link building partners so often begins with linking first.

Two relevant sites citing each other inside real content is how the web has always worked; see reciprocal links and SEO for where the line falls. What Google's policy targets is "excessive" exchanges and pages built only for cross-linking, not the existence of a link in both directions.

Backlinkster is built on that line: you're matched with a site owner in a related niche, each of you places an in-content link inside a real article on your own domain, and each swap is verified by API. No money changes hands between the two sites.

Frequently asked questions

Is it legal to link to another website without permission? Yes, for an ordinary link to a publicly available page. In the EU, the Court of Justice ruled in Svensson (2014) that linking to freely accessible works needs no authorisation. The exceptions involve framing, knowingly linking to infringing material, or bypassing a paywall.

Do I have to tell a website that I linked to them? No. There's no obligation to notify anyone. Many people do send a short note anyway, because a site owner who sees you've cited them is more likely to read your work and, sometimes, link back.

Can a website stop me from linking to it? A site can ask, and it can block access to its own pages, but a "linking policy" posted on its site doesn't by itself make ordinary linking unlawful. If you receive a specific legal demand, get proper legal advice.

Should outbound links be nofollow? Only when they're paid, sponsored or user-submitted. Google's spam policies require nofollow or sponsored on paid links. Editorial citations you chose yourself can be normal followed links.

Does linking to other sites hurt my rankings? No. Relevant citations help readers and Google's own guidance encourages them. Linking to spam, selling followed links, or building pages of unrelated links are what cause problems.

The bottom line

You can link to any public page you want, with no permission or notice. The narrow exceptions are about framing, endorsing illegal material and paywall circumvention, not about linking. The rule that will actually bite you is Google's: if you were paid for it, mark it sponsored. Otherwise, link out generously to good work. It makes your content better and it's a reliable way to get noticed by the people you want links from.