I think this comes into contention with the is-even/is-odd genre of packages on npm, what a gem!
The cherry atop the cake being:
Service degradation: Our API is occasionally returning 2024 instead of 2025. Our intern is investigating and working on a fix. We apologize for any inconvenience and would appreciate if you could stop emailing us about it.
This is well on it’s way to becoming the next big unicorn. The use of AI in this product is breathtaking. I’m quitting my job in hopes that it demonstrates my undying loyalty to this company and product, and in the hopes they hire me before they go public.
First of all, I understand that this is parody. But on a related note: My understanding is that the reason that the year is included in copyright statements is to mark the date of authorship which would be used to mark the “expiry date” of the copyright. So it doesn’t really have to be “up to date”. Although on websites people may see it and get the feeling that the site is abandoned or not updated in a long time. So probably still a good idea to have it reflect the current year, or omit the year completely for websites.
If you’re generating the page each time, technically it’s being created that moment, right? But if someone printed the copy from 2021, the copyright timer would start then for that rendering?
I’ve always wondered about this aspect of this idea.
If you’re generating the page each time, technically it’s being created that moment, right?
Former copyright lawyer here: no; the relevant question is not when the page was created, but when the copyrighted material was authored (which here means roughly a human applying creativity to produce a work in material form). So if a reporter writes something on their notepad December 29, 2024, then transcribes it into MS Word on December 30, 2024, then copies it into the CMS on December 31, and then it’s published on the website on January 1, the appropriate year for copyright purposes is 2024, and the date of authorship is December 29, 2024.
Huh, so if you have a software project or something that gets updated routinely from 2019 to 2022 and then basically settles into maintenance mode, the last year on its copyright should be 2022? Or do small changes still count? Or is it up to the author? (Sorry if I’m getting asking too detailed questions without a contract being involved, I’m just curious about broad guidelines. :-P)
This is correct to first order, and much better than my lengthy answer below!
In these conversations it’s worth keeping in mind the origins of copyright in protecting monopolies on the publication of physical books. Copyright exists in the book, and that copyright includes an exclusive right to create derivative works. And then any derivative work will have its own copyright, starting from the date that new work was authored.
(Technically it may instead be the date of publication, depending on the type of work and jurisdiction, and that applies to both wholly original and derivative works. The point is that the original and derivative works each have their own independent copyright.)
This can result in all sorts of interesting scenarios where one copyright applies but another doesn’t. A well-known example is that the A. A. Milne character Winne-the-Pooh is in the public domain in the US, as are E. H. Shepard’s illustrations of him. However, the Disney adaptations are not in the public domain, and so the elements present in Disney’s (derivative) works, but not the original work, remain protected by the derivative work’s copyright.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Consider a piece of software with a markdown documentation directory, itself published on Github Pages using the default Jekyll theme. This involves:
copyright in the visual aspects Jekyll theme itself, owned by the theme authors
copyright in the theme’s code
copyright in the prose in the markdown
copyright in the arrangement of pages into a documentation site
copyright in the Jekyll configuration file (two copyrights, if you edited the default configuration file - with copyright owned by its authors - to make your own derivative work with its own copyright)
copyright in the artifacts produced by Github Pages (I think there is actually no such copyright due to the lack of a human author, but this is not a totally settled question)
That’s before dealing with copyright in the software application itself, and whether the documentation directory is a part of that single work, or a separate and independent work. Does that change if the docs are in a separate repo? What if it’s included in the parent as a submodule? What if the documentation directory contains in part information generated from a static analysis of the code? If that gets automatically updated by running some command, does that create a derivative work? Does it matter if change happens only due to a change in a dependency? Does it make a difference if the dependency was updated by a dependabot PR or an individual? Does it matter if the command includes lengthy human-written prose, but the arrangement of the sections changes?
I do not believe there are settled answers to any of the questions in the preceding paragraph. Some I think you could take a pretty strong position on safely (e.g. I don’t think use of a git submodule is material to the question of copyright existing), but I don’t think you’d be in breach of Rule 11 to argue either side of any of them in court.
So to go back to GP’s questions:
if you have a software project or something that gets updated routinely from 2019 to 2022 and then basically settles into maintenance mode, the last year on its copyright should be 2022?
I would probably say yes personally (but this is not legal advice, I am not your lawyer, I am not a practicing lawyer, etc).
Or do small changes still count?
Possibly, though there’s no easy way to tell.
Or is it up to the author?
This one I have an answer for! Authorial intent does not matter here.
I include a timestamp in all individual pages of my own websites so that the reader knows if something was written in, say, 2015, the reader will know to exercise some caution when reading it today in 2025.
There was a company advertising on podcasts for a while about doing something or another with CSVs, and it struck me as being pretty similar in spirit to this.
The best touch is the footer of the page.
We‘ll probably get a update soon that they’ve been acquired by Big Calendar - culminating in an “incredible journey” post and an apology for all the sites who will end up with a ©️ NaN footer.
This might be the funniest gag website I’ve ever seen. Thanks for sharing!
The entry on product hunt is excellent https://www.producthunt.com/posts/never-have-outdated-footer-dates-again
Hey thanks I’m glad you like my comment. We should fight against big JavaScript!
I think this comes into contention with the
is-even/is-oddgenre of packages on npm, what a gem!The cherry atop the cake being:
This is well on it’s way to becoming the next big unicorn. The use of AI in this product is breathtaking. I’m quitting my job in hopes that it demonstrates my undying loyalty to this company and product, and in the hopes they hire me before they go public.
First of all, I understand that this is parody. But on a related note: My understanding is that the reason that the year is included in copyright statements is to mark the date of authorship which would be used to mark the “expiry date” of the copyright. So it doesn’t really have to be “up to date”. Although on websites people may see it and get the feeling that the site is abandoned or not updated in a long time. So probably still a good idea to have it reflect the current year, or omit the year completely for websites.
If you’re generating the page each time, technically it’s being created that moment, right? But if someone printed the copy from 2021, the copyright timer would start then for that rendering?
I’ve always wondered about this aspect of this idea.
Former copyright lawyer here: no; the relevant question is not when the page was created, but when the copyrighted material was authored (which here means roughly a human applying creativity to produce a work in material form). So if a reporter writes something on their notepad December 29, 2024, then transcribes it into MS Word on December 30, 2024, then copies it into the CMS on December 31, and then it’s published on the website on January 1, the appropriate year for copyright purposes is 2024, and the date of authorship is December 29, 2024.
Huh, so if you have a software project or something that gets updated routinely from 2019 to 2022 and then basically settles into maintenance mode, the last year on its copyright should be 2022? Or do small changes still count? Or is it up to the author? (Sorry if I’m getting asking too detailed questions without a contract being involved, I’m just curious about broad guidelines. :-P)
Not a lawyer, but I believe the term here is Threshold of Originality (Verkshöjd). “Is this change creative enough to be considered a new work?”
This is correct to first order, and much better than my lengthy answer below!
In these conversations it’s worth keeping in mind the origins of copyright in protecting monopolies on the publication of physical books. Copyright exists in the book, and that copyright includes an exclusive right to create derivative works. And then any derivative work will have its own copyright, starting from the date that new work was authored.
(Technically it may instead be the date of publication, depending on the type of work and jurisdiction, and that applies to both wholly original and derivative works. The point is that the original and derivative works each have their own independent copyright.)
This can result in all sorts of interesting scenarios where one copyright applies but another doesn’t. A well-known example is that the A. A. Milne character Winne-the-Pooh is in the public domain in the US, as are E. H. Shepard’s illustrations of him. However, the Disney adaptations are not in the public domain, and so the elements present in Disney’s (derivative) works, but not the original work, remain protected by the derivative work’s copyright.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Consider a piece of software with a markdown documentation directory, itself published on Github Pages using the default Jekyll theme. This involves:
That’s before dealing with copyright in the software application itself, and whether the documentation directory is a part of that single work, or a separate and independent work. Does that change if the docs are in a separate repo? What if it’s included in the parent as a submodule? What if the documentation directory contains in part information generated from a static analysis of the code? If that gets automatically updated by running some command, does that create a derivative work? Does it matter if change happens only due to a change in a dependency? Does it make a difference if the dependency was updated by a dependabot PR or an individual? Does it matter if the command includes lengthy human-written prose, but the arrangement of the sections changes?
I do not believe there are settled answers to any of the questions in the preceding paragraph. Some I think you could take a pretty strong position on safely (e.g. I don’t think use of a git submodule is material to the question of copyright existing), but I don’t think you’d be in breach of Rule 11 to argue either side of any of them in court.
So to go back to GP’s questions:
I would probably say yes personally (but this is not legal advice, I am not your lawyer, I am not a practicing lawyer, etc).
Possibly, though there’s no easy way to tell.
This one I have an answer for! Authorial intent does not matter here.
And finally, perhaps most importantly: there is (probably) nothing that requires you to put
© 2025on anything. A notice like this - including the year of first publication of the work - was required to receive copyright protection in the US prior to March 1, 1989. Updating the year would indicate at least a claim of a new [derivative] work being first published, hence that practice. However this notice is not required by the Berne Convention, which is the main international convention governing copyright, and which has been ratified by 181 countries. The few non-members are not places where there’s a lot of wrangling about international copyright.I include a timestamp in all individual pages of my own websites so that the reader knows if something was written in, say, 2015, the reader will know to exercise some caution when reading it today in 2025.
LOL for real.
There was a company advertising on podcasts for a while about doing something or another with CSVs, and it struck me as being pretty similar in spirit to this.