|
In lugnet.admin.general, Bram Lambrecht writes:
> Todd,
> Just wanted to point this out:
> I noticed that some pages give a Copyright date of 1998-1999 or 1999 instead of
> 2000 (such as the traffic page, and the Plan pages)
> --Bram
And that is proper, I think.
I am not an IP lawyer but I have encountered this topic before. For works that
have been published, then modified and published again in modified form, one
asserts the first year of publishing and the last. Hence 1998-1999. For works
that were only published once, one asserts that one year. Hence 1999 or 2000.
If a work was published last year (1999 for those readers who read this at some
time t where t sub y>2000) and not modified at all, it is incorrect to set the
copyright to 2000.
Now, it is an entirely different and interesting question as to what
constitutes a work. Is all of Lugnet a single work? probably not.. Is each
individual page a separate work? Also probably not.
This is a case where stated intent is usually considered prima facie evidence
of work boundary.
note well that if you dig into my pages you'll find I am blithely ignoring this
advice which may well bite me at some future point
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply: | | Re: (c) dates
|
| (...) LUGNET as an engine and set of rules consitutes a single piece of work, IMO. The message content from LUGNET's customers, of course, are separate entities. Considering that Todd keeps making changes to the rules and code in LUGNET, it could be (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | (c) dates
|
| Todd, Just wanted to point this out: I noticed that some pages give a Copyright date of 1998-1999 or 1999 instead of 2000 (such as the traffic page, and the Plan pages) --Bram (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|