Copyright Dates

[tervalas]

Not even sure if this is the right forum to put this in, but here it goes.

I noticed on the last comic that it shows 2016 as the copyright date. Obviously we are long past 2016. Not sure if this is because Giant actually did this one in 2016 or if he has just forgotten to change the notice.

[Nightcanon]

1069 has 2017, so I think it is likely to be a typo.

[Capt Spanner]

I'm pretty sure that in the USA and UK Rich the author (or their estate) hold the copyright until a certain number of years after the author dies, so it's probably not that much of an issue if the date is wrong.

[Mad Humanist]

I pointed this out right at the beginning (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21900739&postcount=27).

[martianmister]

Is't that a case of copyright fraud? It has to change immediately.

[Capt Spanner]

Is't that a case of copyright fraud? It has to change immediately.

I'm pretty sure it's not. Copyright fraud would involve claiming to own a copyright that you don't.

So if I started putting Order of the Stick comics on my own private webpage, profiting from ads, and claiming the comic was (C) Capt. Spanner, that would be copyright fraud.

But this would count as an error in the copyright notice, which may make the copyright marginally harder to enforce. It may mean that (legally) the comic goes out of copyright as if it were published in 2016, instead of 2017.

But since copyright on a comic is "70 years after the author dies" and, in this case, the author is still alive I don't think it would cause problems if it were left unchanged.

[martianmister]

Wait, wasn't copyright dates supposed to be from future?

[martianmister]

I texted Rich Burlew and notificated him.

[FujinAkari]

I texted Rich Burlew and notificated him.

Why? This seems overwhelmingly trivial...

[martianmister]

Why? This seems overwhelmingly trivial...

I think it's important? I don't really know anymore. Here is some explanation on copyright dates:


The copyright notice on a work establishes a claim to copyright. The date on the notice establishes how far back the claim is made. This means if you update the date, you are no longer claiming the copyright for the original date and that means if somebody has copied the work in the meantime and they claim its theirs on the ground that their publishing the copy was before your claim, then it will be difficult to establish who is the originator of the work.

Therefore, if the claim is based on common law copyright (not formally registered), then the date should be the date of first publication. If the claim is a registered copyright, then the date should be the date claimed in the registration. In cases where the work was substantially revised you may establish a new copyright claim to the revised work by adding another copyright notice with a newer date or by adding an additional date to the existing notice as in "© 2000, 2010". Again, the added date establishes how far back the claim is made on the revision.

[Razade]

I think maybe none of us here are lawyers. Especially not copyright lawyers. So we probably shouldn't be giving legal advice, especially to someone who has to actually care and know about it.

[martianmister]

I think maybe none of us here are lawyers. Especially not copyright lawyers. So we probably shouldn't be giving legal advice, especially to someone who has to actually care and know about it.

That's why I notified him and leave this issue to his decision.

[Lombard]

Eh, I'm no attorney but I am familiar enough with the U.S. & common law in this regard to know this is basically a scrivener's error type of thing. Isolated boo-boo rebutted by wealth of contextual evidence. Not something to stress over.

[littlebum2002]

Plus, from the law that was cited, a bigger mistake would be putting a later copyright date, which could theoretically give people time to copy it and claim it wasn't copyrighted yet.