Over 500+ Amazing Web Templates With Resale Rights!

[dani]

Dear Business Owner,

Did you know that the word "template" keyword has been searched
10,000's times (NOT including phrases such as "HTML template" or
"FrontPage Template") last month!

That means there are HUGE market for web template business, because
every online business owner need professional design for their
website. With Master Resale Rights License in your hand, you have
freedom to use our collection.

For more information please take your time to visit our website.
http://cheapwebtemplates.cyberdani.com/

Regards,
Sam & Dan

 

[Travis Newbury]

For more information please take your time to visit our website.http://cheapwebtemplates.cyberdani.com/

Two things, first the templates are not all that good. Sub-par at
best. Second, there is hardly a soul here that could not just take a
look at your templates and create a site that looks and feels exactly
like your template. But since there are so many better templates to
look at (and by look at I mean use the best piece of their designs and
throw away the crap) I seriously doubt you have to worry about someone
stealing them...

 

[richard]

Dear Business Owner,

Did you know that the word "template" keyword has been searched
10,000's times (NOT including phrases such as "HTML template" or
"FrontPage Template") last month!

That means there are HUGE market for web template business, because
every online business owner need professional design for their
website. With Master Resale Rights License in your hand, you have
freedom to use our collection.

For more information please take your time to visit our website.
http://cheapwebtemplates.cyberdani.com/

Regards,
Sam & Dan

And why is that you, and hundreds of others selling "templates" feel
that these things are protected by copyright?

What ever you can come up with has been done 100 times over.
HTML is a necessity in order to view a website.
Therefor, it is public domain.

YOU did not create HTML. YOU did not copyright HTML.
You have no legal right to claim that the work is yours to sell.

I can create my own "template" that looks just like yours and there is
not a damn thing you can do about it.

 

[richard]

Words are necessary in order to read a book.
They are in the public domain.
You did not create them or any language, nor copyright same.
Ergo, I can create my own novel that is identical to yours and there is
not a damn thing you can do about it.

True. But no one else can write those words and gain a profit from
them.
However, HTML is and always has been public domain.
As there are certain things that can not be copyrighted, even if you
were the first person to write them down.

What we have to do is to look at who actually created HTML.
That person has the only true copyright to HTML.
If that person now says that anyone can use it free of charge, then no
one can gain a profit from it.

As I said, anything this guy has produced and claims as his original
work, can easily be duplicated by any one without paying him a dime
and there is not a damn thing he can do about it.

 

[I V]

What we have to do is to look at who actually created HTML. That person
has the only true copyright to HTML. If that person now says that anyone
can use it free of charge, then no one can gain a profit from it.

The person who invented HTML has copyright on anything he wrote down
describing HTML; as the people who wrote the W3C's HTML 4.01 spec have
copyright on that spec. But these copyrights don't prevent anyone from
_using_ HTML, whether or not Tim Berners-Lee or the W3C give them
permission.

As I said, anything this guy has produced and claims as his original
work, can easily be duplicated by any one without paying him a dime and
there is not a damn thing he can do about it.

That's not really significant, though. Sure, somebody can produce
something that looks like these templates; but copyright does prevent
somebody from using those actual templates without permission. Likewise,
I can write my own book about a wizard school, and there's nothing J. K.
Rowling can do to stop me; but I can't sell photocopies of Harry Potter
books. That is, I can express somebody else's idea using my own work; but
I can't use their expression of the idea.

 

[richard]

The person who invented HTML has copyright on anything he wrote down
describing HTML; as the people who wrote the W3C's HTML 4.01 spec have
copyright on that spec. But these copyrights don't prevent anyone from
_using_ HTML, whether or not Tim Berners-Lee or the W3C give them
permission.


That's not really significant, though. Sure, somebody can produce
something that looks like these templates; but copyright does prevent
somebody from using those actual templates without permission. Likewise,
I can write my own book about a wizard school, and there's nothing J. K.
Rowling can do to stop me; but I can't sell photocopies of Harry Potter
books. That is, I can express somebody else's idea using my own work; but
I can't use their expression of the idea.

The templates this guy is touting he has more than likely copied from
other sources. There are hundreds of websites dedicated to templates
and many of them give them away. I've looked at those templates and
I've seen them on other sites.

http://www.oswd.org/

This site, which I have used, has now over 2,000 FREE templates.
How much ya wanna bet you can find the same templates here?

And then, if you take a good close look at the layouts, you'll find a
lot of them are the same.

Hell, for that matter, front page included many of those templates.
And I'll even bet so has dreamweaver.

A few years ago I tried explaining to some gal that she did not have
the copyright to some animated gif of a flag waving. She tried
claiming that because she had the template, the work was hers.
Just because you put it on your website, slap copyright on the site,
doesn't make it your work.


I can write a book and have the characters sit around discussing
various movies like star wars, star trek and what ever. What I can't
do, is include those characters in the book as permanent cast.
I can print a million rulers and can't copyright a single one.

I can even take your photo of the Eifel tower and print a zillion
copies and sell each one. As long as there is nothing in the photo
which makes it exclusively yours. That sir, is known as public domain.
HTML is public domain.

 

[I V]

The templates this guy is touting he has more than likely copied from
other sources. There are hundreds of websites dedicated to templates and
many of them give them away. I've looked at those templates and I've
seen them on other sites.

Well, that may be true. But the fact that the OP doesn't hold the
copyright on the templates doesn't mean that they aren't subject to
copyright.

I can even take your photo of the Eifel tower and print a zillion copies
and sell each one. As long as there is nothing in the photo which makes
it exclusively yours. That sir, is known as public domain.

Most photographs are copyrightable, though. If I go to an art gallery and
take a photograph that is simply a reproduction of one of the paintings,
there's no copyright in that photo (at least, not in the US). But if I
take a picture of the Eiffel tower in which the tower takes up a
particular portion of the image, and is framed by a particular view of
the Seine and, I don't know, the Parisian clouds, then the photograph is
almost certainly subject to copyright.

HTML is public domain.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. HTML, in the sense of the set of
rules that say "<p> means a paragraph, <blockquote> means a quote," isn't
the sort of thing that can be copyrighted, so no one can stop me
producing my own documents that conform to these rules; you could say
that was "public domain," I guess. But the HTML markup of any given site
isn't public domain, any more than the textual content is.

 

[richard]

Well, that may be true. But the fact that the OP doesn't hold the
copyright on the templates doesn't mean that they aren't subject to
copyright.


Most photographs are copyrightable, though. If I go to an art gallery and
take a photograph that is simply a reproduction of one of the paintings,
there's no copyright in that photo (at least, not in the US). But if I
take a picture of the Eiffel tower in which the tower takes up a
particular portion of the image, and is framed by a particular view of
the Seine and, I don't know, the Parisian clouds, then the photograph is
almost certainly subject to copyright.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. HTML, in the sense of the set of
rules that say "<p> means a paragraph, <blockquote> means a quote," isn't
the sort of thing that can be copyrighted, so no one can stop me
producing my own documents that conform to these rules; you could say
that was "public domain," I guess. But the HTML markup of any given site
isn't public domain, any more than the textual content is.

I'm no copyright expert by any means. I just know the basics.
Ever since the internet came to be, the word copyright has been
royally abused.
Joe writes something on his site. Jim copies it and claims copyright.
What Jim does not understand is, that Joe already holds the copyright.
The copyright exists the moment something is written.

What is public domain?
PD is when the object in question is readily available to the public
and can be used by anyone at any time.
For instance, the Eiffel tower, or any public building or land, is
public domain.
Even your car on the road is public domain.

Yet, you own the copyright to your photo of the Eiffell tower.
Because you created it. You can make copies and sell it.
Can I do the same with YOUR photo? Yes I can.
Unless, you do something to the photo that makes it exclusively yours.

You know that certain company out there that has all those 3d smiley
faces available right? They claim a copyright.
Sorry. But you can't claim a copyright on them. That's known as a
derivative of other's work.


Question is, is HTML in itself copyrightable?
Maybe not. As I see it as a list. Lists are not copyrightable.

And that is what HTML is. A derivative of the creator's original work.
So no one can really come along and claim copyright on templates.
As anyone who can write a web page can do so on his own machine and
there is not a damn thing anyone claiming a copyright can do about it.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Yet, you own the copyright to your photo of the Eiffell tower.
Because you created it. You can make copies and sell it.

That's true.

Can I do the same with YOUR photo? Yes I can.

That is definitely false. It's MY photo. If you try to sell it (or use
it for your own purposes) you have broken copyright law.

Unless, you do something to the photo that makes it exclusively yours.

I took the photo with my camera. That's enough.

 

[I V]

What is public domain?
PD is when the object in question is readily available to the public and
can be used by anyone at any time. For instance, the Eiffel tower, or
any public building or land, is public domain.
Even your car on the road is public domain.

Anyone can take a photo of the Eiffel tower, that's true. But, in
general, taking the photo produces a new work, which is subject to
copyright, because the particular way in which the photo is framed, etc,
is considered to be creative work. The appearance of the Eiffel tower is
not subject to copyright; but a work, like a photo, that is based on the
Eiffel tower could well be.

Yet, you own the copyright to your photo of the Eiffell tower. Because
you created it. You can make copies and sell it. Can I do the same with
YOUR photo? Yes I can. Unless, you do something to the photo that makes
it exclusively yours.

I'm confused. You say I own to copyright to the photo I took of the
Eiffel tower, but then you say that you can make copies of my photo. But
the two are mutually exclusive. If I have copyright, I have exclusive
control over reproductions of the photo; if any random person can make
copies without my permission, then I don't have copyright.

You know that certain company out there that has all those 3d smiley
faces available right? They claim a copyright. Sorry. But you can't
claim a copyright on them. That's known as a derivative of other's work.

That's not quite right. If you create a derivative work, you do have
copyright in that derivative work; however, you generally can't do
anything with that work without the permission of the person who has
copyright in the original.

Question is, is HTML in itself copyrightable? Maybe not. As I see it as
a list. Lists are not copyrightable.

Well, I think this would be for a court to decide; I don't know if any
court has actually ruled on this. However, just saying that something is
"a list" doesn't really tell you if it's copyrightable or not - a novel
is a list of words, but it's still copyrightable. A computer program is a
list of instructions, but it's copyrightable too. The question is, is a
list of HTML elements a work of creative expression, in the way a list of
words in a novel is?

And that is what HTML is. A derivative of the creator's original work.

Which creator? If I open up a blank document in notepad and start typing
in HTML, whose work am I deriving my web page from?