5 ms·

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 s

by jzwinck 12y ago

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.com/a/2391555/4323 http://stackoverflow.com/a/2391555/4323

mikk0j 12y ago
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.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  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)
  - davidy123 12y ago
    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.
furyg3 12y ago
Copyright: NOW
tlo 12y ago
Full ack! Also, see the GNU copyright notices: https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notice...
dredmorbius 12y ago
Dynamic dates _do_ serve to mark printouts and snapshots of sites, for whatever that's worth.