Expired copyright dates

[FocusedWords]

I was reading an article by Jenna in the July 20, WorldWide Freelance newsletter when I noticed that the copyright dates at the bottom of the article were 1999-2003. Should copyright dates be updated on a regular basis or does this really matter? Thanks.

[maestrowork]

Copyright date is the date of issued. It doesn't get "updated" every year. Copyright expires, I believe, 70 years after the author's death.

[FocusedWords]

Ok. But I'm still confused. How can the date of issue be 1999-2003? I understood that when you post copyright years this way it actually limited the life of the copyright.

[maestrowork]

I see what you mean. I don't know why it's listed as 1999-2003. Usually, copyright notices like that reflect the fact the product keeps changing/upgrading, such as software, TV shows, etc. The only reason I can think of is that the last change in the article was in 2003.

[Jaws]

The dates on copyrights have mattered (since 1 April 1989) only for works for hire, because WFH has a 95-year term (instead of being measured by the life of the author). Technically, purposely putting a misleading date on to deter someone from trying to reprint something in the public domain (or close to entering the public domain) might constitute copyright misuse… but it would be a tough case to win.

The real reason that many works have multiple copyright dates is if they were substantially revised.

[Jamesaritchie]

I was reading an article by Jenna in the July 20, WorldWide Freelance newsletter when I noticed that the copyright dates at the bottom of the article were 1999-2003. Should copyright dates be updated on a regular basis or does this really matter? Thanks.

Dates such as 1999-2003 usually mean the website or the newsletter or whatever was started at the earliest listed date, so they have copyrighted material spanning these years. Neither date has anything to do with an expiration date, only with the range of years they've been doing whatever it is they're doing.

It can also mean that all versions of something that changes each day, or that is updated regularly, such as a website, over these years remain under copyright.

Most websites I visit have such copyright notices at the bottom. The Absolute Write website says Copyright © 1998-2005 Absolute Write at the bottom of the homepage.

I don't guarantee that's the case here, but it's the way everyone I know uses such dates.

[FocusedWords]

Thanks for the help. It's beginning to make a lot more sense. In the past, when I made major revisions I would show only the new copyright date. Live and learn.

[Torgo]

I don't exactly understand it legally. (c) date on books I do is date of publication (not date the author wrote the story). If the artist or writer has changed something since first publication, they are credited with (c) for first pub date and revision date, so e.g. (c) 2000, 2002. Fonts are credited with pub date regardless of the date the font was created. It's all kinda weird. You need to be a lawyer to get it.

[Jaws]

That's because for most of the period for which a copyright marking mattered (that is, up to 01 April 1989), the term of copyright began on publication, not on creation. Many publishers (etc.) haven't yet figured that out; many others (etc.) think that "new" books absolutely need to have this year's copyright or people won't buy them. There's some truth to the latter… but given the awful covers that seem prevalent these days—not to mention the poor editing and production on books for which timeliness actually matters—a customer turned off by an "old" copyright is probably going to find another reason to walk away, too.

[maestrowork]

Some literary awards require that the copyright of the book be the publication year (and not the year the author wrote it!). If it's a 2005 award, frex, your copyright year must be 2005.

[FocusedWords]

For those folks that believe that a writer's life is simple, they need to dip their toes into this quagmire don't you think? It is comforting to know that I'm not the only one to think I understand the basics of copyrights only to find out that I really don't. Thanks again, guys.