I've read that if it's static content (such as an article or blog post), it should probably be statically copyrighted.
If it's dynamically generated content, it should be copyrighted to the current year.
With that logic assumption, and also modern-day copyright laws, isn't it enough to:
a) leave the copyright off altogether
-or-
b) dynamically copyright the footer of the site, then let the post date (or explicitly put static copyright dates) of static content like a portfolio item or blog content be the reference of copyright year?
Someone who has studied this from a legal perspective on this site should post an article :)
Copyright is automatic in the act of creation and has been so for as long as the Internet has exited, in America or otherwise. You never have to claim copyright, and you can't copy people's work without permission wether they expressively have claimed copyright or not. It's to the point that in a lot of countries (like Germany) you can't even disown copyright and put it in the public domain but have to assign it a liberal license instead.
When Google first launched because the homepage was so simple people were still waiting for it to finish loading when it was done. So they added a copyright notice as an indication to people that the load is complete, not for any sort of legal need and Google today don't have the notice anymore. As told Marisa Mayer by cnet.com/news/were-all-guinea-pigs...
Thanks Stephen! I hadn't done much research into this prior to the comments posted here. Really good suggestions here. I really like leaving off the copyright altogether...it seems Google does this and CSS Tricks does it as well.
I can think of a way to do what you had suggested with method b) for static generators since all files have the date in which it was created in the file name and written in the front matter.
Would love your thoughts and would love to update this article based on some feedback on what the best way to handle copyright for a site.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I've read that if it's static content (such as an article or blog post), it should probably be statically copyrighted.
If it's dynamically generated content, it should be copyrighted to the current year.
With that logic assumption, and also modern-day copyright laws, isn't it enough to:
a) leave the copyright off altogether
-or-
b) dynamically copyright the footer of the site, then let the post date (or explicitly put static copyright dates) of static content like a portfolio item or blog content be the reference of copyright year?
Someone who has studied this from a legal perspective on this site should post an article :)
Copyright is automatic in the act of creation and has been so for as long as the Internet has exited, in America or otherwise. You never have to claim copyright, and you can't copy people's work without permission wether they expressively have claimed copyright or not. It's to the point that in a lot of countries (like Germany) you can't even disown copyright and put it in the public domain but have to assign it a liberal license instead.
When Google first launched because the homepage was so simple people were still waiting for it to finish loading when it was done. So they added a copyright notice as an indication to people that the load is complete, not for any sort of legal need and Google today don't have the notice anymore. As told Marisa Mayer by cnet.com/news/were-all-guinea-pigs...
Awesome, thanks!
Thanks Stephen! I hadn't done much research into this prior to the comments posted here. Really good suggestions here. I really like leaving off the copyright altogether...it seems Google does this and CSS Tricks does it as well.
I can think of a way to do what you had suggested with method b) for static generators since all files have the date in which it was created in the file name and written in the front matter.
Would love your thoughts and would love to update this article based on some feedback on what the best way to handle copyright for a site.