There has been much posted recently regarding copyright. Here is a quote from my forthcoming autobiography soon to be published regarding this very complex subject:
"In my early 20's, I decided that it would be a good time to learn more about copyright and publishing so that I could avoid being ripped off in the future by unscrupulous record companies. If I was to form my own publishing company to publish, and therefore control, my catalogue of songs, such information would be invaluable. With that in mind, I trundled off to the Department of Redundancy Copyright in London. The following is what they told me:
The symbol '©' should be printed on all recordings. It doesn't stop people pirating the songs, but it does give your recordings that professional look. The first thing of some importance that I learned was that the word 'uncopyrightable' is the longest word in which no letter appears more than once. If it did, that would be an infringement of copyright. Further, I was informed that when you write copy, you have the right to copyright the copy you write. However, if you copy copy, then you can't copyright the said copy.
You can of course write good and copyright but copyright doesn't mean that the copy will be good - it might not be a right good copy, right? Now, writers of rock & roll songs write rite, and thus have the right to copyright the rite that they write. Other types of song writers write right copy, and also have the right to copyright the right copy that they write. A rockabilly writer might write right rite, and have the right to copyright the right rite that he has the right to write.
Although, his producer has the job of making sure that the right rite copy right before the copyright would be right. Then it might be good copy copyright. Should, for example, Thomas Wright decide to write a rock & roll song, then Wright might write right rite, which Wright has a right to copyright. Copying that rite would copy Wright's right rite, and thus violate the copyright, so Wright would have the legal right to right the wrong. Right?
Publishing lawyers, on the other hand write writs, which is a right in itself, if they don't write writs right, then that is not right, but all writs, copied or not, are writs that are copyright. Judges make lawyer writers write writs right and oversee that all is right.
Advertisers write copy which is copyright of the copy writer's company, not the right of the writer to copyright. But the copy written is copyrighted as written, right? Wrongfully copying a right writ, a right rite or copy is not right. Well that's all cleared up then."
Hope this helps.