Heres My baby

[Guest a1cs]

Heres our baby hope you like it.

Amazing Wallpapers

Thinks to do

1. Convert from 2 column to 3 colum skin (Already a custom skin as is), planned next week

2. Re-Design skin to 3D model like top/bottom banners, planned in next few months.

3. Complete rest of content (Currently 4,700) to 40,000 plus.

4. Add Games Review section.

5. Add Clipart Section

6. Add Desktop Themes Section

7. Add Screen Saver Section.

8. Website Promotion via mailshot and keyword advertising on internet etc.

:huh:

[burgensteen]

Looking good.

A few points,

1....Your home page link is too far down the page for my liking, its not immediately present, you have to look for it.

2....The gap between the search header and search box could be a bit smaller (it breaks up the continuity of your left hand menu.

3....Same as above but for the testimonial link.

4....There is no email address or contact form (I think this can put people off, I would never buy from a store that is uncontactable).

Like I say, just some constructive critisism and my opinion (for what its worth) But coming along very nicely.

Burgensteen

[jerseyjoe]

As you read my response, just remember, you asked.

If the purpose of this web site is to show off disparate graphic design skills, it's adequate. If the purpose is to show how you have learned to integrate those techniques as a way of optimizing the visitor experience, the site shows the opposite.

Most important of all, since this is a shopping cart, if the purpose is to sell something, it is not even close.

This site is too much about the designer and his skills and his personal interests, and not enough about the customer and the products and getting the one to buy the other.

The banner is totally overdone, and has nothing to do with what you are selling. It's hugely too high, effectively shouting on every page and screaming that the visitor should ignore the products and the ordering process. Its complexity is shouting, "Hey! Look at what I can do."

The essential navigational links (i.e. - "home") are placed where you want them, not where experience and common use says the visitor will mostly likely look for them. Further, it appears that even after someone logs in, the boxes for login and price and favorites persist at the top of the left hand column, forcing the visitor to scroll down in order to find the navigation to the categories and products.

Asking "rate my site" is what kids do, not merchants. Merchants want sales, not votes. And what's with the pages of banners and hosting links? How do pages of games keep visitors focused on buying the merchandise?

Text - even in the menus - is centered and multiple colors. Is this to demonstrate that such things are possible - or it simply to slow down the user and discourage reading?

I think I'd better quit before I say what I really think. I probably have pissed you off and that is sincerely not my attention. Telling you what a great job it is is not going to help you.

With sincere respect, I encourage you to Google up such phrases as "web site usability" and "website usability." The second phrase will get you three times as many responses as the first variation. Reading and applying the content of the first few pages of either will yield a gold mine of ideas.

Also search on phrases such as "online marketing", "internet marketing", "website navigation", etc.

I don't agree with or endorse every idea they offer because there are so many exceptions and variations that hard and fast rules do not apply universally. But they are food for thoughts about creative AND effective web site design.

Good luck . . .

[Guest maxed]

its illegal to redistribute gamewallpapers.com wallpaper.s :huh:

[jerseyjoe]

its illegal to redistribute gamewallpapers.com wallpaper.s

hmmmm . . . one irony is that while the gamewallpapers.com site is better focused, with many fewer irrelevant links and lacks the silly "rate me," it is no less ugly - and it is arrogantly hiresolution which, it must be admitted, at least the copy-cat site avoids.

[Guest a1cs]

its illegal to redistribute gamewallpapers.com wallpaper.s

this is to put you Maxed clear about gamewallpapers.com

Gamewallpapers.com does not own the rights of any of the wallpapers on their site and if you did your homework instead of just spamming off which obviously you have, you would realise that.

Example

Click here for a wallpaper from Starcraft II the game which Gamewallpapers.com claims they own the rights for copywrite.

Now click Here and take a good look at the images on the Original Starcraft II game website.

Do they look the same, guess what, they are.

So the next time you go spamming off in forums, get your facts right first, at least we dont claim to own the images or claim copywrite on them, which by the way is illegal in itself because he didnt create the artwork.

As for your comments jerseyjoe and burgensteen, thank you at least some people that use the forum have constructive critisism and dont just spam off about incorrect facts.

Oh and another point Maxed, our website has more wallpaper content than gamewallpapers.com so actually their site is smaller even though more graphical

[jerseyjoe]

copyright, not copywrite.

an easy way to remember . . . it refers to the right to make, distribute or sell copies.

As for more than one party claiming copyright, that's not at all unusual. Think of a copyright as an infinite loaf of bread with as many slices as the owner cares to define and license to others.

Thus, it is possible that more than one web site can purchase and make public claim to a copyright license for the same graphic for use as a screensaver, even though neither of them is the original creator of that graphic. Meanwhile, a tee-shirt maker and a poster printer can each claim a public copyright license if the original owner sels or grants them one.

And all the while, the original copyright holder retains the entire copyright.

Hope that helps . . .

[Guest a1cs]

In explination of my previous copyright comment, it states on the site the following "We create 90% of the wallpapers ourselves, using promotional artworks from the games."

Which actually means they slap a copyright notice at the bottom of the images then claim the images belong and are created by them. Which has been proven time and time again they they do not create them as they do not actually create the artwork nor do they have copyright agreements with the 1476 (count of games listed in their table of contents) games companies for full copyright useage and alteration of their artwork.

This has also been disgussed in other games related forums to do with the site.

Thats why we do not claim the images are ours, nor put copyright notices on any artwork apart from copyright signatures that are already present from games production artwork.

We simply go directly to the source and obtain the artwork from games websites etc

But yes thanks it did help

Its simply a false claim and false advertising

[jerseyjoe]

If I understand you, you too do not have a copyright.

Copying and selling copies of a graphic without the express permission of the creator or licensee is a violation of that party's copyright. The owner of a copyright does not have to claim or display a copyright notice in order to establish and protect that copyright.

The fact that you do not claim a copyright is irrelevant. Unless you have a copyright license from the creator of the graphic, you do not have any rights regarding the item or its derivations and edits.

Or am I mis-understanding?

[Guest a1cs]

I agree but yet we do not claim that we do either like the other party

As for the graphical advertising media, its freely available on all games websites as promotional artwork for the games they produce creating advertising for their products to increase revenue. All artwork that does not have strict copyright limitations are freely available to use, re-advertise at will either on a site, given to others via emails, cd's or other form of media, even though the graphical artists or games production company owns full exclusive rights to all artwork used.

We do not normally use artistic or graphical promotional material without getting prior consent from the main party.

A few words from the Starcraft Copyright Notice

"Blizzard Entertainment® hereby grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable and non- assignable license to use and display, for home, noncommercial and personal use only, one copy of any material and/or software that you may download from this site, including, but not limited to, any files, codes, audio or images incorporated in or generated by the software (collectively the "Downloaded Content") provided, however, that you must include or maintain all copyright and other notices contained or associated with such Downloaded Content"

As you will notice if you browse our site, this is one we do not have in our collection but the other party does.

Please read the footnotes at the bottom of all their images

I hope this clarifies things a little

[Guest offthehook]

I agree but yet we do not claim that we do either like the other party

As for the graphical advertising media, its freely available on all games websites as promotional artwork for the games they produce creating advertising for their products to increase revenue. All artwork that does not have strict copyright limitations are freely available to use, re-advertise at will either on a site, given to others via emails, cd's or other form of media, even though the graphical artists or games production company owns full exclusive rights to all artwork used.

We do not normally use artistic or graphical promotional material without getting prior consent from the main party.

A few words from the Starcraft Copyright Notice

"Blizzard Entertainment® hereby grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable and non- assignable license to use and display, for home, noncommercial and personal use only, one copy of any material and/or software that you may download from this site, including, but not limited to, any files, codes, audio or images incorporated in or generated by the software (collectively the "Downloaded Content") provided, however, that you must include or maintain all copyright and other notices contained or associated with such Downloaded Content"

As you will notice if you browse our site, this is one we do not have in our collection but the other party does.

Please read the footnotes at the bottom of all their images

I hope this clarifies things a little

What they surely do not give you is permission to resell their images. They have given permission for the images to be distributed and used by individuals, and not for resale. Notice the 'noncommercial' bit? That doesn't apply to you as you are charging for people to download those images from your site.

Unless you have an agreement in writing from the owner of any image, and / or any image you have used to create another image you are not permitted by UK law to profit from the sale or distribution of those images. That agreement would probably include the payment of some kind of royalty.

Thats my understanding of copyright law (UK).

But if I am wrong then why on earth would I pay you to download wallpapers when I could get them from somewhere else for free, as you have done?

I was going to tell you what I thought of your site, however as you have blatantly ripped off someone else's design and are seemingly engaging in a dubious business practice (hopefully I am wrong about this) I think it best if I don't.

[Guest a1cs]

What they surely do not give you is permission to resell their images. They have given permission for the images to be distributed and used by individuals, and not for resale. Notice the 'noncommercial' bit? That doesn't apply to you as you are charging for people to download those images from your site.

Unless you have an agreement in writing from the owner of any image, and / or any image you have used to create another image you are not permitted by UK law to profit from the sale or distribution of those images. That agreement would probably include the payment of some kind of royalty.

Thats my understanding of copyright law (UK).

But if I am wrong then why on earth would I pay you to download wallpapers when I could get them from somewhere else for free, as you have done?

I was going to tell you what I thought of your site, however as you have blatantly ripped off someone else's design and are seemingly engaging in a dubious business practice (hopefully I am wrong about this) I think it best if I don't.

yes your correct as to the permissions on the Starcraft II website thats why we stated we did not have the images on our site and I highlighted the copyright notice to begin with.

Its also our understanding of the law.

As for signing up for subscriptions to services, thats a personal choice which many people make based on content, thats why our fee is so small to cover the costs of running and hosting the site, plus small website alterations. We do not make profit either, what we take in subscriptions is ploughed back into the site.

I really dont understand how you can say we have blatantly ripped off someones site, Its a completely different graphic design, we store more content, we are cheaper by far, and do not freely advertise that the images are owned or have copyrights to any images we have on our website. As for dubious business practise, this is only dubious based on profit which we do not make, its to cover the site running costs nothing more so dubious you are wrong

Plus our site is not £9.95 with just over 1000 wallpapers to offer which as you say are freely available and we do not claim that they are our work either so no its not dubious

[jerseyjoe]

A few points are worth clarifying about copyright.

A copyright includes not only the original image but its content and derivations. Since I know zip about games and game characters, I'll have to use more broadly recognized content to make my point.

Let's say you were to take a graphic from a Mickey Mouse comic book or advertisement and remove everything but Mickey's left ear, blow it up, change its colors and then make that appendage the entire graphic and put it on a tee-shirt. As long as what remains is recognizable as having begun as Mickey Mouse's ear, you may not reproduce (copy) and/or sell that tee-shirt, with or without profit, unless a copyright license for putting Mickey's left ear on a tee-shirt is obtained from Disney. Legally, you could not even make a single tee-shirt like that just for yourself.

Point is, derivative works are the same thing as the work itself and merely changing an image does not go around the rights of its original creator.

There are exceptions known in law as "fair use" for use in comment for artistic and cultural purposes such as a book or a video about the significance of Mickey's left ear in the history of graphic art or to teach people how to print tee-shirts, etc., (maybe) but the concept is a not a rigidly defined one.

Each situation stands on its own and a lot depends on a court's opinion of someone's intentions. There are frequent law suits over what constitutes fair use as opposed to what is copyright violation and improper exploitation of someone else's work.

Further, none of what you say:

QUOTE

I really dont understand how you can say we have blatantly ripped off someones site, Its a completely different graphic design, we store more content, we are cheaper by far, and do not freely advertise that the images are owned or have copyrights to any images we have on our website. As for dubious business practise, this is only dubious based on profit which we do not make, its to cover the site running costs nothing more so dubious you are wrong

END QUOTE

matters at all.

First of all, please do not object again to the use of the word "blatant." It means "brazen," as in open defiance of rules or law. Surely that is the case here, regardless of whether you agree or not.

1) a "different graphic design" that uses recognizable characters and/or color scheme, symbols, etc. is nothing more than another example of Mickey's left ear. If the totality of the design isn't yours, it is someone else's property.

2) your offering of "more content" does not create a copyright for you. It is merely a bigger violation of more copyrights that belong to more creators. A bigger crime ca be an excuse only if you are the President or Attorney General or Prime Minister of a large country and can b.s. enough people. But the rest of us have to respect the rights of others or none of us have rights.

3) it does not matter if you claim a copyright or do not. The fact is, you are blatantly selling access to what appears to be someone else's creative product. Even if you gave the stuff away, that would still be a violation of someone else's right to copy (and control copying). Think of it this way . . . were I to make copies of Pirates of the Caribbean, then stand on a street corner and hand them out, that would be as much of a copyright violation as selling them.

4) On that same note, that fact that the revenue is not sufficient to leave you a profit beyond expenses is not merely inept business but foolish because you will need funds for a lawyer when the copyright owners come after you.

An aggrieved copyright holder may very well want more than merely shutting you down. He would have every right to make an example of you by demanding enough damages to bankrupt you - or if you are a minor (which I am kind of suspecting by now) - the copyright holder could sue and demand to take away just about everything your family owns.

That's been done in the area of downloaded music. The well-publicized lawsuits against teenagers at home were carefully crafted to make it clear that being a minor was no shield and parents who did not supervise their kids are financially vulnerable.

Also you say:

QUOTE

Its also our understanding of the law.

END QUOTE

As judges often say, ignorance of the law is no excuse. "What do you mean that's theft? The car was sitting there with the windows rolled down and keys in the lock. Are you trying to tell me now I broke the law by taking it for a ride? Who knew that's illegal?"

The only thing that can recommend a defense of "I didn't know" or "that's my understanding of the law" is that judges and lawyers need a good laugh once and a while just as much as humans do.

And you go on to say:

QUOTE:

As for signing up for subscriptions to services, thats a personal choice which many people make based on content,

END QUOTE

Inducing some one to buy something you do not own is not "personal choice." The fancy word for that kind of statement is "sophistry." Look it up.

I know these comments are not what you came for but someday you may be grateful for them when you hear about what similar activities have cost someone who did not heed this advice.

Stick to creating your own stuff and you'll be a lot happier - and richer.

[Guest offthehook]

yes your correct as to the permissions on the Starcraft II website thats why we stated we did not have the images on our site and I highlighted the copyright notice to begin with.

Its also our understanding of the law.

As for signing up for subscriptions to services, thats a personal choice which many people make based on content, thats why our fee is so small to cover the costs of running and hosting the site, plus small website alterations. We do not make profit either, what we take in subscriptions is ploughed back into the site.

I really dont understand how you can say we have blatantly ripped off someones site, Its a completely different graphic design, we store more content, we are cheaper by far, and do not freely advertise that the images are owned or have copyrights to any images we have on our website. As for dubious business practise, this is only dubious based on profit which we do not make, its to cover the site running costs nothing more so dubious you are wrong

Plus our site is not £9.95 with just over 1000 wallpapers to offer which as you say are freely available and we do not claim that they are our work either so no its not dubious

Sorry, but you are wrong in almost every one of your assertions. Especially that last quote which you seem to feel that as you are cheaper than your competition it exempts you from abiding by the law! Its dubious whatever price you charge for other peoples' copyrighted images.

I really hope you have spent time reading, digesting and understanding Joe's excellent post above. We're not here to knock you for the sake of it, we are trying to alert you to the fact that your site does not appear to comply with the law. Whether you choose to continue trading is up to you, there's nothing more I can add except to advise you to get some legal advice to be sure that you are trading lawfully.

Good luck with your endeavour.