HTML Templates

[Additya]

Many professional web developers, who have perfectly good design
skills, choose not to create their own websites from scratch. Instead,
they select a pre-built website template that they can use to base
their website on.

Quackit offers a range of HTML templates that you can use to build
your own website. These templates are easy to use, and enable you to
get a website up and running very quickly. Choose from our massive
range of free templates and premium website templates.
For more... http://www.ezdia.com/HTML_Templates/Content.do?id=740

 

[richard]

Many professional web developers, who have perfectly good design
skills, choose not to create their own websites from scratch. Instead,
they select a pre-built website template that they can use to base
their website on.

Quackit offers a range of HTML templates that you can use to build
your own website. These templates are easy to use, and enable you to
get a website up and running very quickly. Choose from our massive
range of free templates and premium website templates.
For more... http://www.ezdia.com/HTML_Templates/Content.do?id=740

Oh puhhhhleeeeeeeeessssssssseeeeeeee! Not another template site!
Oh yeah like you just moved onto the planet and don't know that 10,000
sites already huckster the same stuff right?
With every damn one of them claiming copyright on every damn one of the
templates.

"Well god damnit I wrote the code for it so it's my damn copyright!"
Hey dude? I wrote that same code 10 years ago!
So have a million other people since. Because it's on your website, does
not give you copyright.

 

[Neredbojias]

Oh puhhhhleeeeeeeeessssssssseeeeeeee! Not another template site!
Oh yeah like you just moved onto the planet and don't know that
10,000 sites already huckster the same stuff right?
With every damn one of them claiming copyright on every damn one of
the templates.

"Well god damnit I wrote the code for it so it's my damn copyright!"
Hey dude? I wrote that same code 10 years ago!
So have a million other people since. Because it's on your website,
does not give you copyright.

I agree with your sentiment but the post is just spam so you could have
at least deleted the url instead of promulgating it. Anyway, copyright
is a *legal* entity and the originality of html markup alone certainly
does *not* suffice to make said markup copywrited in any respect.

 

[richard]

I agree with your sentiment but the post is just spam so you could have
at least deleted the url instead of promulgating it. Anyway, copyright
is a *legal* entity and the originality of html markup alone certainly
does *not* suffice to make said markup copywrited in any respect.

Of course it's spam. I just love kicking them around every now and then.
I once got into it with some gal who tried claiming she had a copyright on
an animated gif. Which was a similated waving american flag. I tried my
best to explain to her, no honey, you do not have the copyright. You did
not create the software, nor did you create the material within it. You
just simply applied already existing code.

And I just love the zillion "smiley" sites that all claim they own the
copyright to the artwork. People just do not understand what copyright
involves. They think that because it's on their website, they own the
copyright to anything they put on it. Totally wrong.

 

[Neredbojias]

Of course it's spam. I just love kicking them around every now and
then. I once got into it with some gal who tried claiming she had a
copyright on an animated gif. Which was a similated waving american
flag. I tried my best to explain to her, no honey, you do not have
the copyright. You did not create the software, nor did you create
the material within it. You just simply applied already existing
code.

And I just love the zillion "smiley" sites that all claim they own
the copyright to the artwork. People just do not understand what
copyright involves. They think that because it's on their website,
they own the copyright to anything they put on it. Totally wrong.

Yup. General images, too. You can hand-draw an original image, scan it,
and put it on your own website and I can save the file and use it at will
because it ISN'T copywrited UNLESS you go thru the whole legal process to
actually do that. Ergo, 99.999999%+ of the so-called copywrited images on
The Net are nothing of the sort and the sites and software companies that
try to pass them off as such are just full of crap.

 

[David Segall]

You can hand-draw an original image, scan it,
and put it on your own website
because it ISN'T copywrited UNLESS you go thru the whole legal process to
actually do that.

I don't know where you live but this is not true in the United States
<http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork>, the
United Kingdom <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about.htm> or
Australia
<http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Copyright_Howdoyouobtaincopyrightprotection>.

 

[Doug Miller]

Yup. General images, too. You can hand-draw an original image, scan it,
and put it on your own website and I can save the file and use it at will
because it ISN'T copywrited UNLESS you go thru the whole legal process to
actually do that.

That is most emphatically *not* true. Read this:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Pay particular attention to Myth #1.

Ergo, 99.999999%+ of the so-called copywrited images on
The Net are nothing of the sort and the sites and software companies that
try to pass them off as such are just full of crap.

Also incorrect.

 

[Neredbojias]

I don't know where you live but this is not true in the United States
<http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork>, the
United Kingdom <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about.htm> or
Australia
<http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Copyright_Howdoyouobtaincop
yrightprotection>.

I read your links and found them very interesting and informative (even
the one from Australia). However, other forms of babble can be much
more entertaining and legalese was never that popular as an art form.

Ask yourself how many "copywrited" images are posted on The Web yearly
and how many copywrite-infringement cases are successfully resolved
from that group. IOW, what is the ratio? I deal in reality, not
iconoclasm, and if you choose to believe all that crap you
hypothetically read, you still shouldn't try to deceive the public with
tenets that are essentially the fabric of fantasy.

 

[Neredbojias]

That is most emphatically *not* true. Read this:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Pay particular attention to Myth #1.

Curious but irrelevant. In a practical and real sense, that is all
hogwash.

Also incorrect.

Depends on how you define "copywrite". I define it as a work able to
be protected, so your hand-crafted image of a goose and a turkey is
veritable fodder for my "fowl play".

 

[Neredbojias]

From the US Copyright Office FAQ:

"Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the
moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if
you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work."

From <http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register>

""Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the
moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you
wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work""

So...if you DON'T register, is the "copywrite" enforcible? If your
answer is "Yes,", how?

 

[Doug Miller]

Ask yourself how many "copywrited" images are posted on The Web yearly
and how many copywrite-infringement cases are successfully resolved
from that group. IOW, what is the ratio?

You seem to think that the number of successful infringement cases somehow has
some bearing on the issue.

I deal in reality,

Apparently not. Reality is that, by international convention, copyright
inheres in the work from the moment of its creation, whether or not the
creator takes any particular steps to assert or defend his copyright.

 

[Doug Miller]

Curious but irrelevant. In a practical and real sense, that is all
hogwash.

Actually, it's quite relevant. Perhaps you didn't read it very carefully. In a
practical and real sense, you can be sued for using copyrighted material
without consent.

Depends on how you define "copywrite". I define it as a work able to
be protected, so your hand-crafted image of a goose and a turkey is
veritable fodder for my "fowl play".

Sorry, but you don't get to pick your own definitions, especially for terms
that have well-established and internationally recognized meanings.

The word is "copyright", BTW.

 

[Doug Miller]

So...if you DON'T register, is the "copywrite" enforcible?

Sheesh. It's "copyright" -- the right to copy.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias

""Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the
moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you
wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work""

So...if you DON'T register, is the "copywrite" enforcible? If your
answer is "Yes,", how?

As with everything else, it's burden of proof. If I have a doodad that
I created on January 1, 1998 and you make a copy of it and publish it on
June 9, 2008, if I can prove that I created the work before you
published it, then I'm good to go.

That's why people put written works in an envelope and mail it to
themselves, because the postmark would provide proof of date.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

From the US Copyright Office FAQ:

"Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the
moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if
you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work."

From <http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register>

But you can wait until after you've discovered an infringement to
register the copyright, and then proceed with your suit.

There are certain extra benefits, in the event of a lawsuit, to be
gained by having registered the work within five years of its creation,
and more by having registered it within several months.

 

[dorayme]

That's why people put written works in an envelope and mail it to
themselves, because the postmark would provide proof of date.

Every week I mail an almost empty envelope to myself to provide a cover
for any miracles that might happen in the future (like that I make
something I jealously want to guard). Inside, an extra feature in my
technique, I leave a blank folded A4. This is very faintly -
forensically extractable - impressed with the brutal date stamping on
the outside during its travels.

 

[David Segall]

I read your links and found them very interesting and informative (even
the one from Australia). However, other forms of babble can be much
more entertaining and legalese was never that popular as an art form.

You gave what you thought was legal advice. It does not need to be a
popular art form. It does need to be correct.

A web designer that followed your advice could face a major redesign
if they followed your advice and based their design on copyrighted
material that they were then forced to remove.

 

[Neredbojias]

You gave what you thought was legal advice. It does not need to be a
popular art form. It does need to be correct.

A web designer that followed your advice could face a major redesign
if they followed your advice and based their design on copyrighted
material that they were then forced to remove.

Okay, that *could* happen. But what are the chances? And if the
so-called copywrighted material ain't been registered, there is nothing
to force the intrepid designer to capitulate besides pure bluff,
anyway. However, I do admit that that probably does work in the
majority of cases.

 

[Neredbojias]

Actually, it's quite relevant. Perhaps you didn't read it very
carefully. In a practical and real sense, you can be sued for using
copyrighted material without consent.

One can be sued for almost anything. I'm sure you can
research-and-discover several cases where a defendant was successfully
sued for copywright infringment but I am saying that there are several
*million* where it hasn't happened.

Sorry, but you don't get to pick your own definitions, especially for
terms that have well-established and internationally recognized
meanings.

Ultimately, any definition is defined by myself as it relates to me so
actually I do get to pick, so to speak.

The word is "copyright", BTW.

Oh.

 

[Neredbojias]

It's spelled "copyright," and neither you nor I have any say in its
definition - it's defined by assorted laws and international
treaties. You're entitled to your opinion of copyright law as it's
written - and to be honest I'm mostly with you on that - but your
opinion of it doesn't change what it is.

I may have nothing to say about the legal definition of the word but
the practical definition lies well within the realm of my deductive
reasoning.