5 ms·

17 days into 2019 and companies still haven't updated their copyright year

19 points by tmartty 8y ago

zrail 8y ago
Alternatively, just don’t list a year.
- arghwhat 8y ago
  Or nothing at all. It's unnecessary per the Berne Copyright Convention.
- hateful 8y ago
  If a lot of programmers are like me, then they list whatever the client pays them to list. Of course, we can, and should suggest alternatives. But then they'd need to listen!
citilife 8y ago
I don't really understand listing a year in any case...
- JdeBP 8y ago
  You really won't understand the convention that some people have of listing it in Roman numerals, then. (-:
  - buboard 8y ago
    you have to give credit to movies for that
VBprogrammer 8y ago
Isn't this totally pointless anyway? Certainly under UK law there is no need to assert copyright in order to claim it.
- JdeBP 8y ago
  There hasn't been a need for copyright declarations (in order to assert copyright) in U.S. law since 1989, either. A quick précis: "All rights reserved." is totally pointless chaff. A copyright declaration still has a modicum of use, but most of the pre-1989 requirements for it have gone. * http://jdebp.eu./FGA/law-copyright-all-rights-reserved.html http://jdebp.eu./FGA/law-copyright-all-rights-reserved.html
- jmngomes 8y ago
  On the other hand, it's a rather diminute investment, the benefit being that if you ever have to sue someone for infringement, you can unequivocally state that the infringer had been put on notice that the content was copyrighted, thereby helping your case. A meek help, true, but the benefits seem to far outweigh the "investment" of adding a copyright notice to a document.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
gpm 8y ago
If you haven't updated the page since 2018, surely the page's copyright is from 2018 not 2019, and the copyright expires in 2018 + just short of forever instead of 2019 + just short of forever. It seems like having an auto updating footer like this advocates would be the most mild form of fraud ever, or something.
buboard 8y ago
is the javascript way of taking the client's year legally sound ?
- sokoloff 8y ago
  No (but IANAL). Copyright protects creative expression. There is no creative expression in 2019 (or 2034 if the client is mis-configured) if the last edit to the input file(s) was in 2018.
- arghwhat 8y ago
  No, as the declaration is not "current year" but "year of publication". But, just remove the thing. It's not required.
  - buboard 8y ago
    but it makes my site look "professional"
acura 8y ago
Is the copyright notice really something that matters anything? And if so doesn't forward dating your copyright claim invalidate your claim? At least if you don't include a starting year.
- arghwhat 8y ago
  It has no legal effect. Many years back, a cocktail of copyright statements and "All rights reserved" were needed to enforce your rights, but this has not been the case for a long time.
  - tzs 8y ago
    > It has no legal effect That's not quite correct in the US. A copyright notice may help you in the US if you sue someone for damages for infringing your copyright, by making it harder for them to prove that they are an "innocent infringer". An "innocent infringer" is someone who did not know and had no reason to believe that they were infringing. If the defendant can prove that they are such (and they bear the burden of proof for this), it greatly reduces the lower bound on the range of damages the court can award. Including a copyright notice nips that possibility in the bud [1]: > If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2). (The exception is for some non-profits, libraries, public broadcasters, etc., in the case where they thought their use was fair use and turn out to be wrong, and allows reducing damages to $0 for them) [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/401 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/401
    - arghwhat 8y ago
      How in the world would the "innocent infringer" defense play out, considering that any and all copyrightable content is implicitly copyrighted at its conception? Especially considering that the declaration does not assist in distinguishing between copyrightable and non-copyrightable aspects within publication. Saying that the user did not understand that content was copyrightable seems akin to claiming that they did not know stealing was wrong. It is the burden of the individual to know the laws they must follow, and not knowing them is not a valid defense to the best of my knowledge. The U.S. has such a weird legal system.
JdeBP 8y ago
A copyright declaration is supposed to contain the year of first publication, which is not always the current year. The fundamental premise of this article is wrong.
drcongo 8y ago
It's 2019 and this site still isn't able to handle a bit of traffic from HN.
- coding123 8y ago
  ;)
treycopeland 8y ago
Whoops something went wrong

19 points by tmartty 8y ago

zrail 8y ago

Alternatively, just don’t list a year.

arghwhat 8y ago
Or nothing at all. It's unnecessary per the Berne Copyright Convention.
hateful 8y ago
If a lot of programmers are like me, then they list whatever the client pays them to list. Of course, we can, and should suggest alternatives. But then they'd need to listen!

citilife 8y ago

I don't really understand listing a year in any case...

JdeBP 8y ago
You really won't understand the convention that some people have of listing it in Roman numerals, then. (-:
- buboard 8y ago
  you have to give credit to movies for that

VBprogrammer 8y ago

Isn't this totally pointless anyway? Certainly under UK law there is no need to assert copyright in order to claim it.

JdeBP 8y ago
There hasn't been a need for copyright declarations (in order to assert copyright) in U.S. law since 1989, either. A quick précis: "All rights reserved." is totally pointless chaff. A copyright declaration still has a modicum of use, but most of the pre-1989 requirements for it have gone. * http://jdebp.eu./FGA/law-copyright-all-rights-reserved.html http://jdebp.eu./FGA/law-copyright-all-rights-reserved.html
jmngomes 8y ago
On the other hand, it's a rather diminute investment, the benefit being that if you ever have to sue someone for infringement, you can unequivocally state that the infringer had been put on notice that the content was copyrighted, thereby helping your case. A meek help, true, but the benefits seem to far outweigh the "investment" of adding a copyright notice to a document.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

gpm 8y ago

If you haven't updated the page since 2018, surely the page's copyright is from 2018 not 2019, and the copyright expires in 2018 + just short of forever instead of 2019 + just short of forever. It seems like having an auto updating footer like this advocates would be the most mild form of fraud ever, or something.

buboard 8y ago

is the javascript way of taking the client's year legally sound ?

sokoloff 8y ago
No (but IANAL). Copyright protects creative expression. There is no creative expression in 2019 (or 2034 if the client is mis-configured) if the last edit to the input file(s) was in 2018.
arghwhat 8y ago
No, as the declaration is not "current year" but "year of publication". But, just remove the thing. It's not required.
- buboard 8y ago
  but it makes my site look "professional"

acura 8y ago

Is the copyright notice really something that matters anything? And if so doesn't forward dating your copyright claim invalidate your claim? At least if you don't include a starting year.

arghwhat 8y ago
It has no legal effect. Many years back, a cocktail of copyright statements and "All rights reserved" were needed to enforce your rights, but this has not been the case for a long time.
- tzs 8y ago
  > It has no legal effect That's not quite correct in the US. A copyright notice may help you in the US if you sue someone for damages for infringing your copyright, by making it harder for them to prove that they are an "innocent infringer". An "innocent infringer" is someone who did not know and had no reason to believe that they were infringing. If the defendant can prove that they are such (and they bear the burden of proof for this), it greatly reduces the lower bound on the range of damages the court can award. Including a copyright notice nips that possibility in the bud [1]: > If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2). (The exception is for some non-profits, libraries, public broadcasters, etc., in the case where they thought their use was fair use and turn out to be wrong, and allows reducing damages to $0 for them) [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/401 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/401
  - arghwhat 8y ago
    How in the world would the "innocent infringer" defense play out, considering that any and all copyrightable content is implicitly copyrighted at its conception? Especially considering that the declaration does not assist in distinguishing between copyrightable and non-copyrightable aspects within publication. Saying that the user did not understand that content was copyrightable seems akin to claiming that they did not know stealing was wrong. It is the burden of the individual to know the laws they must follow, and not knowing them is not a valid defense to the best of my knowledge. The U.S. has such a weird legal system.

JdeBP 8y ago

A copyright declaration is supposed to contain the year of first publication, which is not always the current year. The fundamental premise of this article is wrong.

drcongo 8y ago

It's 2019 and this site still isn't able to handle a bit of traffic from HN.

coding123 8y ago
;)

treycopeland 8y ago

Whoops something went wrong