[thelist] Copyright

[edc_quik@ihug.co.nz]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lee Kowalkowski" 
Subject: Re: [thelist] Copyright


: On 4 August 2011 00:26, edc_quik at ihug.co.nz <edc at wnc.quik.co.nz> wrote:
: > 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.
: 
: -- 
: Lee
I don't disagree, which is why on each page of my site,(when it was up),
in addition to the "standard" copyright footer [2000 - 2011]  the meta tags
included 'last updated and more particular copyright information including
the actual  copyright owner if not myself....just remember that copyright does
expire and in some instances when creating a site for a third party this could in 
time become an issue....

For an authoritative discussion on the use of meta data check out 
Dublin Core Meta Data: 

http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-xml-guidelines/