Comment by ru552
9 months ago
Copy in copyright is not copy like copy in copying some data.
Copy in copyright is a term for the actual writing that gets published on ads, or magazines, or in a news paper. "I need to get the copy from marketing for this campaign." "The editor hasn't approved the copy for the article yet."
Typically, people not in/around the industry aren't familiar with the term, which leads to the confusion.
The word “copy” in the early 1700s when copyright was codified in law meant both a written text and a reproduction of a written text. The meaning you’re using, of text at an intermediate stage of a publishing process, is much later, 19th century. [0] So, the original meaning was a noun (the right to make “a copy” of a book) but meant the book itself, not the abstract text of the book. It would be interesting to research whether there were any rulings in that period about hand-copying a book, which was the only alternative to printing it.
Nowadays of course copyright covers much more than text, and includes such “copies” as the public performance of a theatrical work or reproduction of a sculpture, so the modern copyright clearly doesn’t have the meaning you’re using.
[0] https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/08/copy.html
Any proof that the word copyright was intentionally referring to the noun instead of the verb? The British Statute of Anne in 1710, the first copyright statute, definitely referred to the act of copying a book, not some abstract concept of writing samples.
This sounds completely false to me. Do you have a reference for it?
In particular, the original Statute of Anne (the first law establishing a copyright) is officially titled:
> An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of Copies, during the Times therein mentioned
No doubt people used the word "copy" in the sense you mean, but "copy" in "copyright" is absolutely about copying as in copying some data.
I always thought that ad copy also came from copy as in copy some data. Like it's the words that get copied when the media is replicated for distribution, as opposed to words that are for some internal communication purpose.
The use of the noun copy probably came from the act of copying, but both uses predated the word copyright, so that doesn't really help answer the question.
So I guess the relevant distinction I see is whether the owner of the copyright controls the act of copying a string or controls the string itself in any artifact anywhere. We’re saying that if they meant copy the verb it’s the former and if they meant copy the noun it’s the latter. Is that right?
I see what you mean about it not helping to answer the question in a direct way.
Where I’m coming from is I think that if copy and copy were of a different origin completely, like from French vs Greek or something, and the homophone-ness (homophonity?) was a coincidence, then I could see the authors of the law using the much less common industry term without considering whether people would get confused.
But if one refers to the other, it seems implausibly confusing for them to use the way less common meaning and not expect anyone to get confused in a way that would change the meaning of the law. Or was the copyright law written by the characters of mad men??? Seems more like an overreach by certain media publishers.