21–30 of 48 posts
I'm not a lawyer, but I've been in meetings where management decided the year needs to update, so that's when I started using this snippet:
in ruby html.erb:
These copyright notices are mostly-useless boilerplate anyway, but if you're going to have one, it should have specific, fixed dates, not dynamic ones as this site suggests [1]. As a thought experiment: if a date is not actually in the document, but is updated dynamically by the document, what legal purpose could it serve? It seems an exhibit with no more legal relevance than a pocket watch. [1] http://stackoverflow.…
That's right thanks. Yes, only the first year when published serves a purpose for copyright reasons. You just see so many of (c) boilerplates that give a year span. Or are there for not copyright reasons at all. But right, having a single dynamic year is not good for copyright reason.
I have literally never seen an innocent infringement defense succeed due to a missing copyright notice in a situation around websites (and in fact, in a lot of countries, it's not even possible anymore)
Im not sure of the legal value of having a copyright footer - could anyone explain if it would actually stand up in a court of law?
You have no notice on your work
A person thinks they bought rights to your work from someone who is not you, AND has been reasonably misled by the lack of notice into believing they have rights to your work.
They did not actually get rights, they just think they did, because of the missing notice that would have informed them that you owned the rights.
You sue them.
In this case, you can stop them in the future, but you may get no past damages. Anything they do after the point that they receive notice, they owe damages for.
As I mentioned, i'm aware of zero cases this has occurred around internet websites. I'd love to hear of one.
(claims of innocent infringement defense are common. It's almost always asserted. I'm saying i'm not aware of a valid or successful claim around a website due to a missing copyright notice).
This is not how copyright works. One of the biggest misconceptions on the web. Well not unless you are worried about your copyright in 100 years. You could have copyright 2001, that doesn't mean it expires 2002, or 2003 or even 2015. Given that Disney characters and stories would come into public domain soon, you can also easily bet copyright will be extended for hundreds of years by Congress. In 1976 Congress extend…
Based on the logic of the previous sentence, wouldn't it be good until 2064?
Please note: Copyright notices are not required, they are only used out of habit, ignorance, or as a mild deterrent. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p03_copyright_no...
But thanks for the links. There also seem to be (other?) lawyers on this comment thread who have pointed out how useless such notices are for enforceable copyright protection.
This is not how copyright works. One of the biggest misconceptions on the web. Well not unless you are worried about your copyright in 100 years. You could have copyright 2001, that doesn't mean it expires 2002, or 2003 or even 2015. Given that Disney characters and stories would come into public domain soon, you can also easily bet copyright will be extended for hundreds of years by Congress. In 1976 Congress extend…
>This means if you made your site in 2000 and you died today, the copyright would still be good until 2050. Based on the logic of the previous sentence, wouldn't it be good until 2064?
Corporations get 75 and will most certainly keep getting extensions, can you imagine Disney ever becoming public domain?
These copyright notices are mostly-useless boilerplate anyway, but if you're going to have one, it should have specific, fixed dates, not dynamic ones as this site suggests [1]. As a thought experiment: if a date is not actually in the document, but is updated dynamically by the document, what legal purpose could it serve? It seems an exhibit with no more legal relevance than a pocket watch. [1] http://stackoverflow.…
Im not sure of the legal value of having a copyright footer - could anyone explain if it would actually stand up in a court of law?
For works created after Berne (1988), it is 100% worthless, except in this one little edge case that has, to my knowledge, never occurred in practice. This edge case is: You have no notice on your work A person thinks they bought rights to your work from someone who is not you, AND has been reasonably misled by the lack of notice into believing they have rights to your work. They did not actually get rights, they jus…