Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's Almost 2015. Update Your Footer

updateyourfooter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: It's Almost 2015. Update Your Footer

#41

Post by dctoedt »

DannyBee wrote: post #35
annnnd wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I don't agree with you, but it would be difficult to find such case - because most of the pages have the copyright notice. I am guessing that it doesn't hurt, so why not have one?

Most copyright notices on these pages are invalid, so they would not serve as valid notice anyway, so your presumption is wrong (it also reminds me of the bear patrol episode from the simpsons) First, the form is often wrong, which makes it the same as no notice. Second, if the date is wrong, it depends. If you use too early a date, you lose that many years of protection. If you use a date 1 year or more after first…

A copyright notice does indeed have utility, to the extent that it discourages people from thoughtlessly repurposing your content. Some folks, in the absence of a copyright notice, erroneously assume that the content in question is free for the taking.

The best protection is that which helps to keep at least some unauthorized copying from happening in the first place, not that which lets the copyright owner (expensively) go to court.

Elsewhere in this thread, @lloeki is on the right track: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8809137

Re: It's Almost 2015. Update Your Footer

#42

Post by snowwrestler »

mrmondo wrote: post #8

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?

Under U.S. law it does not need to "stand up"; copyright protections adhere to new content when it is created, regardless of notification. Thus at worst, it is superfluous.

At best, though, it shows that you made an effort to remind your visitors of your copyright. While not strictly required by law, it might help convey a sense of good faith and conscientiousness to the judge or jury.

Re: It's Almost 2015. Update Your Footer

#44

Post by davidy123 »

DannyBee wrote: post #22
mikk0j wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, it's all worthless. 100% worthless. 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)

Can you clarify this? Are you saying you have never seen a defense succeed, as in, a website has been using a name and didn't put up a copyright notice and wasn't able to claim inherent copyright? Or the opposite. Thanks.

Re: It's Almost 2015. Update Your Footer

#45

Post by DannyBee »

dctoedt wrote: post #41
DannyBee wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most copyright notices on these pages are invalid, so they would not serve as valid notice anyway, so your presumption is wrong (it also reminds me of the bear patrol episode from the simpsons) First, the form is often wrong, which makes it the same as no notice. Second, if the date is wrong, it depends. If you use too early a date, you lose that many years of protection. If you use a date 1 year or more after first…

A copyright notice does indeed have utility, to the extent that it discourages people from thoughtlessly repurposing your content. Some folks, in the absence of a copyright notice, erroneously assume that the content in question is free for the taking. The best protection is that which helps to keep at least some unauthorized copying from happening in the first place, not that which lets the copyright owner (expensiv…

You make the odd assumption it makes any difference to rates of copying.

I actually would seriously doubt that it does.

Re: It's Almost 2015. Update Your Footer

#46

Post by dctoedt »

DannyBee wrote: post #45
dctoedt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A copyright notice does indeed have utility, to the extent that it discourages people from thoughtlessly repurposing your content. Some folks, in the absence of a copyright notice, erroneously assume that the content in question is free for the taking. The best protection is that which helps to keep at least some unauthorized copying from happening in the first place, not that which lets the copyright owner (expensiv…

You make the odd assumption it makes any difference to rates of copying. I actually would seriously doubt that it does.

> You make the odd assumption it makes any difference to rates of copying. I actually would seriously doubt that it does.

Either way, including a copyright notice is an extremely-cheap hedge, with little or no appreciable downside risk; if it deters even one copier, it has justified its close-to-epsilon cost.

Re: It's Almost 2015. Update Your Footer

#47

Post by DannyBee »

dctoedt wrote: post #46
DannyBee wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make the odd assumption it makes any difference to rates of copying. I actually would seriously doubt that it does.

> You make the odd assumption it makes any difference to rates of copying. I actually would seriously doubt that it does. Either way, including a copyright notice is an extremely -cheap hedge, with little or no appreciable downside risk; if it deters even one copier, it has justified its close-to-epsilon cost.

"with little or no appreciable downside risk"

Except, as I pointed out, it has serious downside risk. If you do it wrong, you are heavily penalized by law. If you do it right, you get some vague and possibly zero benefit.

Re: It's Almost 2015. Update Your Footer

#48

Post by dctoedt »

DannyBee wrote: post #47
dctoedt wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You make the odd assumption it makes any difference to rates of copying. I actually would seriously doubt that it does. Either way, including a copyright notice is an extremely -cheap hedge, with little or no appreciable downside risk; if it deters even one copier, it has justified its close-to-epsilon cost.

"with little or no appreciable downside risk" Except, as I pointed out, it has serious downside risk. If you do it wrong, you are heavily penalized by law. If you do it right, you get some vague and possibly zero benefit.

> If you do it wrong, you are heavily penalized by law.

For U.S. works created after the Berne Convention went into effect in 1989, that won't be the case. Consider the possibilities under 17 U.S.C. 406(b):

1. If you use too-early a date in the copyright notice, you lose that many years of protection. If it's just a year or two, or even 10 years, that's almost literally rounding error compared to the term of copyright.

2. If you use a year that's one year too late (e.g., 2016 for a 2015-published work), you're fine.

3. If you use a date that's more than one year too late (e.g., 2018 for a 2015-published work), it's the same as publishing with no notice. But because it's a post-Berne work, you don't need a copyright notice. So you don't care.

So for post-Berne works, there seems to be almost literally zero downside to including a copyright notice of some kind. Even just the word "Copyright XYZ Inc." with no date would give you some deterrent effect, even if it turned out to have no legal significance. Am I missing something here?

Post reply on HN