Fences make great neighbors, and while you don't legally need a copyright notice in the US for most purposes, putting one on there is a cheap investment in preventing accidental casual infringement and lets you skip the "Whoops I didn't realize copying that would be infringing" stage of the "Please knock that off" conversation.
There are some advantages to adding the copyright, but none of them are legal... sort of.
The way copyright law works isn't black and white - it's more like a harsh linear gradient where there is a lot of space of black and a lot of space of white, but a sliding scale between.
When you put the copyright explicitly on your site, you are making a statement - that the contents of the site are, indeed, unmistakably copyrighted and should not be reused without proper permissions (or at all, in most cases).
While you receive copyright implicitly by law in the US, the severity of possible legal action is partially dependent on what a judge says makes sense. For instance, one could easily (albeit ignorantly) make the accident that something on GitHub isn't copyrighted because GitHub hosts a ton of open source stuff. If the copyright is explicitly stated, for a person to copy it would portray a gross disregard, and lack of responsibility and due diligence.
So, yes, there are good reasons to place a copyright symbol, but it doesn't necessarily change your copyright status by law.
> For instance, one could easily (albeit ignorantly) make the accident that something on GitHub isn't copyrighted because GitHub hosts a ton of open source stuff.
"Open source" stuff is copyrighted. The only thing, in US law, that is not copyrighted is material that is either (a) not of the type of material subject to copyright, or (b) for which the copyright has expired, or (c) produced by the US government.
In fact that's what I've been using for my recent projects (e.g. things made at hackathons) — not sure which message (if any) I'd stick in the footer of a proper new website.
I've been doing both, although in hindsight it would be better to stick to one. Personally, since the copyright has very little legal implications (from what I know), you might as well just do the "Made with <3 in..." thing IMHO.
Why do you even want to reserve the copyright for your webpage's contents? Do you really care if people copy some of the text or source formatting of the site?
The copyright year is generally when the work was first published. Even if the site is updated regularly the copyright notice should still stay the same. For example, I launched my website in 2009 and while it does get updated on a weekly basis, the copyright still says 2009.
I bet they are. I do it too, particularly if you're looking for something that has changed since a certain date. An explanation of a math technique probably hasn't changed since whenever it was posted, but if I'm looking for reviews on laptops, I don't want laptops from 2009.
I realize that date of publication of the particular article can be different from date of most recent publication, so I don't immediately throw out the site, but if it looks dormant I may leave and go to another site.
The practice then should be to put a range of years encompassing all updates, e.g., 2009-2013. If you didn't touch the site in a certain year, you'd include a list of ranges and/or specific years, e.g., 2007, 2009, 2011-2013
Well first off, if you don't have a copyright (which it doesn't sound like you do) - no, there's no purpose. A copyright is actual legal material which you have to apply for, just like a patent (http://www.copyright.gov/forms/). However whether this is worth it or not depends on the nature of what you're putting up online.
"A copyright notice or copyright symbol is an identifier placed on copies of the work to inform the world of copyright ownership. While use of a copyright notice was once required as a condition of copyright protection, it is now optional. Use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with the Copyright Office."
"... in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's defense based on innocent infringement."
In the US, you do not need to apply to the Copyright Office to be granted the copyright. You get it implicitly when the work is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression".
you do not need to apply for a copyright. you apply for papers to make lawsuits easier. they provide you with documented and notarized dates and actions.
And more worthwhile. Having a registered copyright allows you to potentially collect punitive damages with a successful lawsuit rather than just the actual market value of the usage.
