TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
If different lawyers and legal departments use different systems, that
doesn't mean that one system is right and the rest are wrong. There's
usually more than one correct system. The greatest risk is in either (a)
not having a system at all, or (b) not following the system you have.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Ridder
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:13 PM
To: robert -at- lauriston -dot- com; techwr-l -at- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: RE: updating copyright notice date ranges
By way of counter-example to this categorical statement about multiple
years in the copyright notice, my current employer (a Fortune 500
technology company) has the following statement in the corporate
"required legends and statements" document (a standard practices
document that we're expected to follow, which is written by the
corporate tech pubs people but vetted by the intellectual property group
of the corporate legal department):
"The copyright notice must contain the year of the initial release and
the year of the latest revision. If a revision occurs within the same
year as the initial release, only one date is needed."
According to this statement and the examples that follow it in the
document, intermediate releases/revisions are ignored and the initial
and most recent release years are indicated, separated by a comma. This
practice does not agree with either of Robert's "everyplace I've worked"
practices, nor do I believe that it agrees with Doug's recommendation,
which I recall addressed intermediate editions and not just the first
and last.
And regarding the use of the copyright symbol, the same "required
legends and statements" document says:
"It is not legally required to use both the symbol and the word
Copyright, but "Copyright (c) 20XX <company name>." is preferred."
This message contains confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing, copying, electronic storing or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us, by replying to the sender, and delete the original message immediately thereafter. Thank you.
Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help.
Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need. Try
Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days. http://www.doctohelp.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
