Hello all,
I develop my website in PHP and I have a header file which is included at the top of all of my pages.

Within that header file, I have a few HTML commented lines with my copyright info. I am just wondering if there is a better way to do this and if this affects SEO in any way.

<!--
*****************************************************************************
*	 =================================================================== 	*
*	 |  Website Info:                                                  |	*
*	 |  This website was created and developed by AUTHOR.        |	*
*	 |  All content and source coding is copyrighted to the author.    |	*
*	 |  Hosting for this website is provided by DOMAIN.COM            | 	*
*	 |                                                                 |	*
*	====================================================================	*
*****************************************************************************
-->

    this is the simpliest how you could do this.

    another way if you make a function to print the copyright info.

      How the comment gets into the served HTML is irrelevant to the search engine. Whether the search engine reads comment tags at all is a different matter.

        Caveat: I am not a lawyer.

        Just a thought: I am not sure how legally binding a copyright notice is that is not viewable in the normal usage of the content in question. It might apply to someone who wants to use your actual source code, but it might be difficult to enforce for the actual displayed content of that web page.

          I would just insert a copyright meta tag like:

          <meta name="copyright" content="Copyright 2004-<?php echo date('Y'); ?> Mr.Smith - All rights reserved." />

          This will have nill effect on SEO, but it's there in case people have a look at the code. Something tells me commented code in general is probably ignored by search engines is my guess.. but as Nog comments, add a visible copyright notice on your site's page. Typically the footer contains this.

            I'm not a lawyer either, but I can point out:

            1. A copyright notice is supposed to include the year the work was created, since copyright is time-sensitive.

            2. Under the terms of the Berne Convention, copyright on a work exists automatically as of right; by default it belongs to the work's creator (if the work was created under contract then that would be different).

              Weedpacket;10902114 wrote:

              • Under the terms of the Berne Convention, copyright on a work exists automatically as of right; by default it belongs to the work's creator (if the work was created under contract then that would be different).

              Righty-O. Granted, automatic copyright creation should not be confused with being automatically enforced.. The author in question should still take precautions such as registering works with the Copyright Office as an example of what I'm sure are many that one could take to 'prove ownership' of intellectual property (not sure how to enforce code ownership though).

              On the topic of copyrights, for visual artists like myself, things could get very hairy if this U.S. Orphan Works bill passes. That could be a game changer 🙁

              EDIT - I encased 'prove ownership' as a signal that certain steps doesn't necessarily prove ownership, (perhaps the Copyrights Office was a bad example), much like two authors can create literature or visual work that is practically identicle, does not prove one deliberately copied the other one (this is the flip side of the coin example).. so just wanted to kind of clarify that before I get stoned to death over misinformation. The gist is, take extra steps to aid in enforcing your copyrights if the IP in question is worth protecting.

                nrg_alpha;10902120 wrote:

                On the topic of copyrights, for visual artists like myself, things could get very hairy if this U.S. Orphan Works bill passes. That could be a game changer 🙁

                I don't see how it's a game-changer. It only deals with the use of works for which the copyright owner cannot be found, and limiting the damages which can be rendered against such a user if he used "due diligence" to locate the copyright holder. It does not in any way allow anyone to "steal" your work, and even if they make due diligence to locate you, they still must pay you fair value for your work should you "resurface" and prove your ownership; you just cannot sue them for additional damages if they did, in fact, make that due diligence. See http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/392 for a detailed discussion.

                  From visual artistic groups, the Orphan Works Bill is seriously problematic. I've included my write-up that just glances over some of the issues. At the bottom the page, there are links to large visual organizations and the problems they have with the Orphan Works Bill. Exploitation and broadness of scope pose as really big problems. All in all, I do personally think its a potential game changer for sure.

                  EDIT - The link you provided is from 2006.. those versions have been withdrawn.. there are new 2008 ones.

                    This was a useful article but obviously posted by a graphics artist who chooses font size based on how it looks on the page rather than whether it is readable by anyone over the age of 20. :rolleyes: 😉

                      NogDog;10902123 wrote:

                      This was a useful article but obviously posted by a graphics artist who chooses font size based on how it looks on the page rather than whether it is readable by anyone over the age of 20. :rolleyes: 😉

                      lol yeah, I know.. I really don't understand why some sites use such small fonts... Thank god browsers can simply bump this size up (be it text only or everything) 🙂

                        you just cannot sue them for additional damages if they did, in fact, make that due diligence

                        What does "due diligence" mean.

                        Hoping not to lose you guys here but I spent a few years studying law. No law degree though. And what I saw will scare you.

                        First legal terms only vaguely resemble, in meaning, the common usage meaning. That alone better make you redouble your efforts on anything legal. And legal definitions are much more strict in how they are applied.

                        But what is due diligence. In law almost every legal action that one would wish to take against another requires that the other be served and give a minimum amount of time to respond. There are times when it is 30 days other time as little as 3 days. I have seen cases were the law firm would print the letter with the day it was written date and then hold the letter till a day or 2 before the response was required. Or for the more reputable they would mail it on saturday.

                        So what exactly is due diligence. It could be as little as printing a notice in paper of record. Translated, the town Middle of Nowhere has a newspaper and they put the notice in there looking for the copyright owner of any given work. Meaning the copyright holder will never see it.

                        Now all that is the extremes. But none the less if some wants to, unless that due diligence is much more clearly defined, they may be able to steal your work and make it so you can never recover damages. So it is all really in the exact wording and how a lawyer and his judge buddy interpret said law.

                        I don't wish to be an alarmist but what you see and what they see are 2 different things.

                          Yes, much of our lawmaking, unfortunately, has made this a "government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers," to [sadly] paraphrase Lincoln.

                            Krik;10902127 wrote:

                            What does "due diligence" mean.

                            That's a very good question, and this is one of a few issues with Orphan Works... I have revised my page and included a full length audio interview with the IPA for those interested.

                            Taking searches as an example. the issue of privatized registrars which authors of creative works would be urged to register with could be numerous once a reality and off the ground (assuming this Orphan Works becomes a reality).. Say 100 separate owned and operated registeries crop up.. and you as an artist register with 10... the infringer looks up say 20 of them (of which you are not registered)..Did they do their due diligence? Perhaps..did they find you? You can see the problems creeping up here... Numerous 'loop holes' that really need to be addressed. so terms like due diligence really seems loose in definition and perhaps opens up room for exploitation.

                            To get back to this thread's intentions (sorry for the derailment)... I do have a question.. How would someone 'enforce' copyrights of code they have written? I don't do this for a living, so I am not familiar with the ins and outs of these matters... but obviously, well crafted, well designed code (at least in say software, games, etc..) certainly has a place in enforced copyrights (not sure about website code though.. perhaps someone can shed light in on that particular area).

                              Write a Reply...