Copyright 2006, have you updated your copyright notice? Options

[siXcrookedhighways]

just a friendly reminder to update your copyright notice. keeping this up to date shows visitors you are current and on the ball, plus you don't want your copy ripped off. check out the U.S. Copyright Office for info. the Copyright Basics link under About Copyright should get you started.

Example: © 2006 John Doe

... and i must confess i have not yet updated mine

This post has been edited by siXcrookedhighways: Jan 1 2006, 08:42 PM

[Ron Carnell]

Careful.

The effective date of copyright is the date of creation. If that was in 2003, you probably don't want to surrender your rights for three years by changing the notice to 2006 (not that you would, but you could certainly make it a lot more difficult to enforce).

When you see an extended copyright notice on a work, such as © 2003-2006, it means that parts of the work were created (and thus copyrighted) in 2003, and other parts were created in subsequent years. Until you actually add something to your site in 2006, there's no legal need to change your copyright notice.

However, while the legal need doesn't exist, I agree it does help show visitors the site is still alive and active. Just remember to add to existing copyright, not replace it.

[randfish]

Thanks for the reminder - I need to get on that

[sonjay]

If you place the copyright notice using PHP (or other scripting language of your choice) you can have it automagically update itself every year.

Upon the stroke of midnight, all of the sites I'm responsible for suddenly changed from, e.g., Copyright 2002-2005 to Copyright 2002-2006, with no intervention on my part.

[siXcrookedhighways]

great points ron and i like the option of spanning the years 2002 - 2006. sonjay has a great suggestion with using your favorite scripting language to display the year. after i did updates last year i knocked myself over the heading asking why i didn't do that. it's on my list for this week.

[Tim]

I often forget to do this - but I remembered this year at about 4.30am on New Years Day

[travis]

Mate,

In Australia, you're protected regardless.

You designed it. You made it. You own it.

Unless otherwise specified, the original copyright belongs to you unless you have signed a document saying otherwise.

You dont even have to write the word copyright on your work.

[bragadocchio]

You don't have to write the word copyright on your work in the US either.

But, putting the notice on the pages of a site isn't a bad thing to do, anyway.

Here's a statement from the US Copyright Office that explains a couple of reasons why you might want to include a copyright notice in some instances:

Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright 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 section 504©(2) of the copyright law. Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected.

[kensplace]

Hi bill,

For people like me who are clueless on finding out about techy things about the law,
what does

except as provided in section 504©(2) of the copyright law

mean

[bragadocchio]

Hi Ken,

Here's a link to that section of the law:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504

It deals with the types of damages that a person might claim and possibly receive under a copyright infringement lawsuit.

There can be actual damages, such as losses of profits. There can also be damages from what the infringer gained in profits.

Alternatively, there could be statutory damages imposed under certain conditions.

[kensplace]

Im celebrating after a hard days work doing my g/f's forums, so a little tipsy, but after a skim (and I mean, I randomly scrolled down, and started reading) this hit me in the face..

© Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(e) False Representation. - Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

Am I missing something here? Or does that say, in the US, you can basically screw someone over, and the max you have to pay is 2500 dollars, which lets face it is a lot less than what a lot of copyrighted material is worth.

Like I say, I have not fully read it, but that hit me.

[manager]

Hi

keeping this up to date shows visitors you are current and on the ball,

Leaving aside the legal points, I agree that it does make you look “more on the ball”.

It is also an opportunity to make some money by updating your client’s websites. I charge a minimum “1 hour labour charge” for anything I do, so it’s a nice little “earner”.


TreV

This post has been edited by manager: Jan 2 2006, 10:05 AM

[john928]

I have not updated mine on some of my sites yet. But most of my sites I don't even bother updating it as I use a script snippet which I made so that it automatically does it for me.

I prefer to make my sites as automated as possible, even when it comes to the copywrite part of the site.

[kensplace]

What is the legal situation if you based that on the server time? What if the battery died, and the time went back 199x?

If your copyright stated the wrong year due to a hardware problem, and someone copied you, would they have a claim that you stated copyright (wrong year)?

[Le Ier]

In most countries (in fact just about everywhere) you automatically have Copyright the moment you create something - even text for the web - music.... whatever.

But, the big problem is proving you created that at a certain moment in time- that's the tricky bit!! Yes it is in your computer - but dates and data can be changed and a 'copyright' notice does not prove when the work first existed.

My point is - you create something. Someone steals it (or part of it). You say it is yours and you wrote it in 2003. They say it's theirs and they wrote it in 2002. The point is PROVE IT.

I've run into this problem more then once and have searched the web for the answer. Yes you do have the Copyright office in the USA - but I don't live in the USA - and if I did they would be too expensive ($30 a pop....meaning everything has to be registered separately).

If you want to register all the data/text ..... whatever on your web site it will cost a small fortune. I found intellectual property registration - here I can register all the data I need in one go - put all you need into one folder - zip it - and register it within a couple of minutes.

It will hold up in court in the USA, UK even Aussi land, and takes the hassle out of IP rights.

This post has been edited by Le Ier: Mar 3 2006, 03:41 PM

[Respree]

One way to 'prove' who 'got their first' is to print out your website (where practical), then mail it to yourself. The independent post mark date is your proof that the site (text, images, etc.) existed as of a certain time.

Of course, don't open it until you have to.

This post has been edited by Respree: Mar 3 2006, 04:38 PM

[Le Ier]

One way to 'prove' who 'got their first' is to print out your website (where practical), then mail it to yourself.  The independent post mark date is your proof that the site (text, images, etc.) existed as of a certain time.

Of course, don't open it until you have to.

Yes - also known as a 'poor mans copyright' and has little chance of standing up in court these days. Legal experts in the USA and UK strongly advise not to do this.

This is what I found on the web:
1)The poor man’s copyright can be faked, in several ways – easily

2)The poor man's copyright has rarely been heralded as a success anywhere that we can find online

3)A poor man’s copyright is not technically needed to secure a copyright.

4)A poor-mans copyright could leave you even poorer, if that’s all you have as proof of copyright.
This info was found at: http://www.copyrightauthority.com/poor-mans-copyright

I'll stick to a more modern version (www.file-reg.com) that will hold up in a court of law in 2006, and not something that dates back to the 19th century. The poor mans copyright also costs more time then sitting behind your computer and registering it online. You have to buy stamps, envelopes, paper..... print it all out, seal the envelope, post it....... and it may get lost in the post!!!

Now all I have to do is activate the registration software, find the file I want to register on the computer - and click the button! Within seconds I get an email confirming my registration. With the Copyright office I have to wait 3 to 6 months! (Really)

One other point..... regarding number 3 .A poor man’s copyright is not technically needed to secure a copyright.
The same goes for electronic registration..... you already have copyright - the point is ''prove it'.

This post has been edited by Le Ier: Mar 3 2006, 05:09 PM

[bragadocchio]

If you want to register all the data/text ..... whatever on your web site it will cost a small fortune. I found intellectual property registration - here I can register all the data I need in one go - put all you need into one folder - zip it - and register it within a couple of minutes.

Really rather actually file with the offices that are official than some proxy.

Why not just register with the US Copyright Office?

http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html

Or the information from WIPO:

http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/copyright.html

[Le Ier]

Really rather actually file with the offices that are official than some proxy.

Why not just register with the US Copyright Office?

http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html

Or the information from WIPO:

http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/copyright.html

US Copyright office is VERY expensive. Here's a comparison:
20 songs (must be registered seperatly) @ $30 = $600 (Copyright office)
20 songs (can be registered in one zip file @ $25 (membership fee) + $18 registration fee = $43. (File-Reg.com)

No contest.

The system of 'electronic evidence' for data/files using digital signatures and digital fingerprinting has been in use since 1998 and there has never been a court case that has disaproved this method. It may be proxy - but it's cheaper, easier and does not diminish the 'legality' of evidence or proof of Copyright.

This post has been edited by Le Ier: Mar 3 2006, 05:34 PM

[Ron Carnell]

20 songs (must be registered seperatly)

That's simply not true, as someone familiar with copyrights should already know, Brian.

I have to agree strongly with Bill here. Even if we accept the efficacy of what I see as just another Poor Man's Copyright scheme, registering with a company or individual is a waste of money if that company or individual is no longer around when you need them. While I'm not suggesting that you'll be out of business next month, Brian, neither would I want to bet my future that you'll be here the rest of my natural life, plus 70 years (which is how long my copyrights last). To be frank, that skepticism is particularly well founded, I think, when you come into a forum and say "I found Intellectual Property Registration" as if you would have people think you have no vested interest. It doesn't strike me as the best way to engender trust.