[jzwinck]

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

[mikk0j]

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]

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]

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]

Copyright: NOW

[tlo]

Full ack! Also, see the GNU copyright notices: https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notice...

[dredmorbius]

Dynamic dates _do_ serve to mark printouts and snapshots of sites, for whatever that's worth.