New Year = Free Content

take advantage of lazy webmasters

[figment88]

It has been 2003 for hours across the globe and still the bulk of webmasters have failed to update the copyright notices in their page footers.

[red_bull]

the copyright still aplies... some may even say that teh date on the copyright is the date that the work was produced.

Still it is always a good idea to update your notices.

[IanTurner]

It is usual for copyright to last 20-25 years depending on where you are based. So even if a webmaster doesn't update his Copyright 2002 stuff it will still be copyright until 2022.

[JonB]

then why do some bother typing something like 1999 - 2002? year of "birth" should be enough then if it lasts 25 years..

[msr986]

You will have to wait at least 70 years.

[copyright.gov...]

[bird]

Copyright is established automatically when the work is created, without requiring any further action by the creator.

The copyright notice only documents that fact for informational purposes. Neither does the note itself establish any rights, nor does its omission forfeit them. If you think that an old date on a copyright notice allows you to violate copyright, think again. You might end up with more troubles than you can handle.

The reason why you see copyright notices with a range of dates (eg. "1999 - 2003") is because people sometimes change and update their works. The copyright of the old parts of a web page may have been established in 1999, but the copyright on any changes you make today will also be established today. Neither date has any relevance for when those rights will expire, though. That typically only happens 70 years after the creator died.

[bcc1234]

One does not have to have any copyright signs at all.
Anything your write down is copyrighted by your automatically (at least in the USA). Check the site of the patent office - the whole thing is clearly described.
There used to be a requirement to put a sign, but not any more.

As a matter of fact, I own copyright to my post right now :)

[rmjvol]

As a matter of fact, I own copyright to my post right now

There you go, breaking the TOS again :)

"No... copyrighted content may be inserted into WebmasterWorld posts." [webmasterworld.com]

[jackofalltrades]

Technically, because its your own copyright, then it isnt a problem.

But everytime you quote someone, that particular TOS is broken! :) Although it does state that its allowed to a small extent (4 lines or so), otherwise a link is sufficient.

(c) 2003 jackofalltrades inc

<edit> updated copyright notice...:)</edit>

[edited by: jackofalltrades at 3:26 pm (utc) on Jan. 2, 2003]

[Grumpus]

When you see a "copyright Year1-Year2" notice, what that actually means is that it was created in Year1 with "revisions made" up to and including year2. If you haven't updated your site, then there's no need to update the last year. If you see a "comma" in between the years, it is supposed to mean that it was made in year1, and updated in year2 (usually meaning only one revision was made).

Although, others are correct with the other stuff posted - you don't need a copyright notice, etc.

G.

[Syren_Song]

Since copyright notices aren't required anymore to prove ownership (at least not in the US), the main purpose for them is twofold:

(1) to remind law-abiding citizens that they shouldn't steal other folks' stuff; and

(2) as proof of when the original work was created for the future lawsuit if someone not-so-law-abiding steals your stuff.

[bcc1234]

"No... copyrighted content may be inserted into WebmasterWorld posts."

I didn't post somebody else's copyrighted material here. I posted my own thoughts for which I own the right to copy. Those are different things.

(c) 2003 jackofalltrades inc

(c) - was never recognized as a valid substitute for ©.

[jackofalltrades]

>(c) - was never recognized as a valid substitute for ©.

:(

[JonB]

i heard that easy way to break copyright is to make parody of copyrightet material. i am seeing so much parody on the net (bush,star wars,micrsoft etc..etc) so i guess in none of these cases author of parody asked if he can do it.

[thaedge]

Parody is all over one of my sites. Some just for my aumsement other of it has attracted alot of traffic on google. Only problem, had 2 Large companies come after me even though the material was one offs or parody. So parody isnt always safe.

- Dave

[rcjordan]

Copyright, trademark, parody, libel, whatever... in business, the first question is never Am I right? but "Can I afford to be right? You can be sued for anything.

No wonder some Russians are upset. But do they have a legal case? Amazingly, they might - but it would be an exceptionally weak one.

Putin Has Come To Sue You, Dobby [writ.news.findlaw.com]

[mgream]

> (2) as proof of when the original work was created for the future lawsuit if someone not-so-law-abiding steals your stuff.

This works if they steal without alteration and they leave existing notices. If they alter the material, then it is entirely possible for the party to counterclaim that they created it, and you are infact the infringer. If this occurs, then you need to rely upon some other mechanism of proof to resolve the dispute (witnesses? archives? notarisation? indexes?).

I keep historical records of my website (in a CVS repository) so that I can easily demonstrate a history of development and effort applied over time. I also have source material (templates) from which the site is generated (another party would need to reverse engineer my site to produce this) which strongly suggests that I am the author of the content. These is strong evidence that probably satisfies what the civil courts desire to be "on the balance of probabilities". I do have unique content (articles, etc) that I need to protect.

Matthew.