5 ms·
It appears that you're correct, but I'm still having a hard time believing that the legal departments of almost every major company make the same mistake. That
by kdommeyer 15y ago
It appears that you're correct, but I'm still having a hard time believing that the legal departments of almost every major company make the same mistake. That makes me think that there is something we're missing.
- benologist 15y agoThey could be counting the year it was rendered on your computer. That seems a bit wonky though.
- chc 15y agoI'm going to guess the missing thing is that the legal department wasn't the one that implemented the autoupdating date.
- hrktb 15y agoIANAL but for web pages, especialy dynamic ones, "the year of first publication" seems to be a flawed concept. You could as well say the page is first published everyday. About the presence of rogue engineers playing with copyright notices at will in big companies, some yahoo properties go through the hassle of manually updating the copyright notice every year under the explicit request from the legal department.
- dkersten 15y agoSurely dynamic updates are "republished" not "first published" after the first time the page is created.
- sirclueless 15y agoNot unless it's the same content. Arguably if some of the content is old (old blog posts, tweets, etc.) then you should use a range of years. As many others have pointed out the whole thing is just a signalling mechanism, and not a strict requirement -- "(c) 2012" says, "Don't steal this stuff, it's copyrighted, and we have actively maintained this page through 2012 so we aren't a company from the stone age."
- vegardx 15y agoAnd when the legal department noticed the error they didn't want to go through all the hoops to get it fixed, as legally it has no meaning. Also, as we see many people seem to think that you need to update the year, so they might have done it on purpose even.