lee.kowalkowski at googlemail.com
Thu Aug 4 14:26:11 CDT 2011
On 4 August 2011 00:26, edc_quik at ihug.co.nz <edc at wnc.quik.co.nz> wrote:
> : beneficial. I'm not sure many sites apply their copyright
> : declarations accurately.
> There are in a website various elements, original design, graphics etc and the
> 'current' content, so it is quite legitimate to have a copyright notice 2000 - 2011
Isn't that lazy though? Just saying 2000-2011 doesn't say what date
goes with what element of Intellectual Property the dates apply to.
I'd be inclined to just say Copyright 2000 (the year of creation) in a
header/footer link to the copyright page containing the breakdown if
necessary. Then for example any articles added to the site can have a
date against them and its copyright date may be inferred from that.
Incrementing the year every year (or automatically putting the current
year) seems unnecessary at best, and wrong if nothing on the website
has been added or updated.
More information about the thelist