Every now and then I see a web site that has an old copyright date. In my mind, I always think "Look at the sucker who forgot to update his copyright year!" Then, while I was hard-coding a copyright year into the site I'm currently designing, it suddenly struck me:
How the hell am I going to remember to update this?
My immediate reaction was just to use some server-side coding to automatically display the current year. Bam, fixed.
Later, I began to ponder to myself, if someone as big and smart as Google can overlook this, perhaps there's something wrong in doing it this way. Maybe I'm doing something wrong? I guess what I'm really wondering is why I feel compelled to keep the copyright year up to date. Is there a reason, or is my chronic OCD to blame?
If there is a good reason to keep them up to date, why don't more developers use server-side code? I see these "mistakes" all over the place.
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.
There is no reason at all for an individual to update the copyright year, because in the U.S. and Europe the life of copyright is the life of the author plus 70 years (50 years in some other countries like Canada and Australia). Extending the date does not extend the copyright. This also applies when a page has multiple contributors none of which are corporations.
As for corporations, Google doesn't update their copyright dates because they don't care whether some page they started in 1999 and updated this year falls into the public domain in 2094 or 2109. And if they don't, why should you? (As a Googler, now an ex-Googler, I was told this was the policy for internal source code as well.)
Technically, you should update a copyright year only if you made contributions to the work during that year. So if your website hasn't been updated in a given year, there is no ground to touch the file just to update the year.
Your OCD is to blame :)
You do not have to put anything about copyright on your page - copyright automatically applies until you explicitly license it otherwise. Copyright also applies for a preset number of years as determined by international treaties. I do not know what the exact number of years is, but it is a lot, so there is absolutely no point in updating the year in your copyright notice.
It is important to recognize that the copyright laws have changed and that for non-US sources, especially after the USA joining the Berne Convention on March 1, 1989, copyright registration in not necessary for enforcement of a copyright notice.
Here is a resumé quoted from the Cornell University Law School (copied on March 4, 2015 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/copyright:
"Copyright
copyright: an overview
The U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 - 810, is Federal legislation enacted by Congress under its Constitutional grant of authority to protect the writings of authors. See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8. Changing technology has led to an ever expanding understanding of the word "writings." The Copyright Act now reaches architectural design, software, the graphic arts, motion pictures, and sound recordings. See § 106. As of January 1, 1978, all works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression and within the subject matter of copyright were deemed to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Copyright Act regardless of whether the work was created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished. See § 301. See also preemption.
The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, license, and to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work. See § 106. The exclusive rights of the copyright owner are subject to limitation by the doctrine of "fair use." See § 107. Fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research is not copyright infringement. To determine whether or not a particular use qualifies as fair use, courts apply a multi-factor balancing test. See § 107.
Copyright protection subsists in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. See § 102. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery. For example, if a book is written describing a new system of bookkeeping, copyright protection only extends to the author's description of the bookkeeping system; it does not protect the system itself. See Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879).
According to the Copyright Act of 1976, registration of copyright is voluntary and may take place at any time during the term of protection. See § 408. Although registration of a work with the Copyright Office is not a precondition for protection, an action for copyright infringement may not be commenced until the copyright has been formally registered with the Copyright Office. See § 411.
Deposit of copies with the Copyright Office for use by the Library of Congress is a separate requirement from registration. Failure to comply with the deposit requirement within three months of publication of the protected work may result in a civil fine. See § 407. The Register of Copyrights may exempt certain categories of material from the deposit requirement.
In 1989 the U.S. joined the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. In accordance with the requirements of the Berne Convention, notice is no longer a condition of protection for works published after March 1, 1989. This change to the notice requirement applies only prospectively to copies of works publicly distributed after March 1, 1989.
The Berne Convention also modified the rule making copyright registration a precondition to commencing a lawsuit for infringement. For works originating from a Berne Convention country, an infringement action may be initiated without registering the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. However, for works of U.S. origin, registration prior to filing suit is still required.
The federal agency charged with administering the act is the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. See § 701 of the act. Its regulations are found in Parts 201 - 204 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations."
Copyright should be up to the date of publish.
So, if it's a static content (such as the Times article you linked to), it should probably be statically copyrighted.
If it's dynamically generated content, it should be copyrighted to the current year
I don't think they are reprinting paper books each year. The copyright of the year when the book was printed is valid in all next years.
The same principle should apply to web pages, too. However "the year when website was created" is a bit different. So, if you make changes to your web site - you are not done yet. Hence, when updating the site, you may want to update the copyright year.
Microsoft Asp.Net web site templates do exactly that. They put the current year dynamically.
And I kept the same code in my prod site.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2390230/do-copyright-dates-need-to-be-updated