Hacker News Reader

Comment by dovel | Hacker News Reader

I think the date of copyright is supposed to be the date at which content you are copyrighting was first created and anything after that date is covered. Not certain though

View on HN

There are no rules here, only conventions. In my opinion, a copyright year in the past makes it look like you don't know what you're doing. If you feel the need to tout your long history, then put the start and current year, like 2011-2013. Otherwise, follow convention and make sure it always reads the current year.

Lying about the copyright date is fraud.

That work will (hopefully) enter the public domain one day. By forward-dating the copyright notice, you are attempting to fraudulently extend your limited monopoly.

except his suggestion backward-dated it seeing as 2013 is not the future...

Erm, if the work was created in 2011, then 2013 is a future date. Remember, positive numbers go up. Negative numbers go down. Try to keep up!

As far as I know, this is untested in court for online documents. There is an argument that says that each HTTP request is an act of publication, thus updating the copyright date to that point in time. It's not a view I subscribe to personally.

Copyright is dated to first publication. Re-publication is irrelevant. Disney doesn't get to extend the copyright on Mickey Mouse by re-issuing steamboat Willy. They have to bribe politician for that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com