[DannyBee]

For works created after Berne (1988), it is 100% worthless, except in this one little edge case that has, to my knowledge, never occurred in practice. This edge case is:

You have no notice on your work

A person thinks they bought rights to your work from someone who is not you, AND has been reasonably misled by the lack of notice into believing they have rights to your work.

They did not actually get rights, they just think they did, because of the missing notice that would have informed them that you owned the rights.

You sue them.

In this case, you can stop them in the future, but you may get no past damages. Anything they do after the point that they receive notice, they owe damages for.

As I mentioned, i'm aware of zero cases this has occurred around internet websites. I'd love to hear of one.

(claims of innocent infringement defense are common. It's almost always asserted. I'm saying i'm not aware of a valid or successful claim around a website due to a missing copyright notice).

[mrmondo]

Thanks for taking the time to reply, that's quite interesting. I also wonder how this applies for countries other than America, for example in New Zealand you can't actually 'sue' someone, you can take them to court if they've performed a criminal act but I'm not sure how you'd get with content on a website.

[annnnd]

Not that I don't agree with you, but it would be difficult to find such case - because most of the pages have the copyright notice. I am guessing that it doesn't hurt, so why not have one?

[DannyBee]

Most copyright notices on these pages are invalid, so they would not serve as valid notice anyway, so your presumption is wrong (it also reminds me of the bear patrol episode from the simpsons)

First, the form is often wrong, which makes it the same as no notice.

Second, if the date is wrong, it depends.

If you use too early a date, you lose that many years of protection.

If you use a date 1 year or more after first publication, it's the same as no notice

So what you get by using wrong notices can be worse than nothing. You actually lose some protection.

As for the rest of the reason not to do it, because it's complete an total cargo cult lawyering that wastes tons of time? You think you are getting something. You are getting worse than nothing. You are wasting time (this thread etc) figuring out how and when to update something, and whether it's legally correct, etc.

[dctoedt]

A copyright notice does indeed have utility, to the extent that it discourages people from thoughtlessly repurposing your content. Some folks, in the absence of a copyright notice, erroneously assume that the content in question is free for the taking.

The best protection is that which helps to keep at least some unauthorized copying from happening in the first place, not that which lets the copyright owner (expensively) go to court.

Elsewhere in this thread, @lloeki is on the right track: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8809137

[DannyBee]

You make the odd assumption it makes any difference to rates of copying.

I actually would seriously doubt that it does.

[dctoedt]

> You make the odd assumption it makes any difference to rates of copying. I actually would seriously doubt that it does.

Either way, including a copyright notice is an extremely-cheap hedge, with little or no appreciable downside risk; if it deters even one copier, it has justified its close-to-epsilon cost.

[DannyBee]

"with little or no appreciable downside risk"

Except, as I pointed out, it has serious downside risk. If you do it wrong, you are heavily penalized by law. If you do it right, you get some vague and possibly zero benefit.