Copyright material on websites

Subject: RE: Copyright material on websites
From: banksie
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 06:52 AM

Oh......ummmm..... ahhh......oops

Thanks for pointing that out Murray, I completely missed that one, even after reading it several times.

And there was I ready to set my dudgeon controls to `High', as the `copyright as a verb' argument - and the wider `noun-as-verb as most often perpetrated by those Americans' often rages amongst writers. Time for a tincture to relax with, I feel.

Subject: RE: Copyright material on websites
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 01:22 PM

uhh, I think you are missing the point, banksie, nobody is taking issue with your choice of words.

relevant posts copied below, hope this helps.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: Copyright material on websites
From: Girl Friday - PM
Date: 11 Apr 09 - 01:54 PM

We've been looking into something similar today. For a small fee, PRS allow you to make short runs of copywrited songs for sale on CD

PRS and Copywrite


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subject: RE: Copyright material on websites
From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 11 Apr 09 - 05:17 PM

F!

No such verb. And the noun is "copyright".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: Copyright material on websites
From: jeffp - PM
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 12:49 PM

There certainly is such a verb. As an editor, I have worked with many copywriters. Some of the material was even copyrighted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Murray MacLeod - PM
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 05:44 PM

I'm with Richard on this one.

From Wikipedia:

Although the word copywriting is correctly and regularly used as a noun or gerund, and copywrite is sometimes used as a verb by professionals, copywrite is not listed by major dictionaries.

IMHO copywriters don't "copywrite" any more than songwriters "songwrite".

Subject: RE: Copyright material on websites
From: banksie
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 05:13 AM

Murray, I didn't think I said anything about copywriting, though as someone who has done a fair bit of copywriting for a living, I am aware of the way language use changes and `develops'.

I was actually enquiring about `copyright', a word that may not be a verb, offically at least, but is already some of the way there. It is listed by the OED and Websters as a transitive verb: to copyright a [something].

As someone often paid by the number of written words produced I accept I should probably know better. After all, sentences such as "I think I should set in motion a series of actions that would allow me to obtain copyright to this piece of work" has far more words in it than "I think I'll copyright this".

Subject: RE: Copyright material on websites
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 05:44 PM

I'm with Richard on this one.

From Wikipedia:

Although the word copywriting is correctly and regularly used as a noun or gerund, and copywrite is sometimes used as a verb by professionals, copywrite is not listed by major dictionaries.

IMHO copywriters don't "copywrite" any more than songwriters "songwrite".

Subject: RE: Copyright material on websites
From: jeffp
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 12:49 PM

There certainly is such a verb. As an editor, I have worked with many copywriters. Some of the material was even copyrighted.

Subject: RE: Copyright material on websites
From: banksie
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 10:54 AM

Thanks for that URL, Ms Friday. I'm not sure it is quite the same thing, or whether it actually applies to our situation, but we will investigate.

Subject: Copyright material on websites
From: banksie
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 01:13 PM

A band I am in wants to record some demo tracks for its website, and some of the material is copyright. We don't plan to allow download of the tracks or sell them, though it is possible we may want to use them for a demo CD given away to promoters etc.

We don't want to fall foul of copyright legislation, but the only licence we have found that covers this is a PRS one for limited use, which costs £107.

Does anyone have any thoughts/observations on either the licence (is there a cheaper option for example) or the necessity for it, while still remaining legal?

Subject: RE: Copyright material on websites
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Apr 09 - 05:17 PM

F!

No such verb. And the noun is "copyright".

Subject: RE: Copyright material on websites
From: Girl Friday
Date: 11 Apr 09 - 01:54 PM

We've been looking into something similar today. For a small fee, PRS allow you to make short runs of copywrited songs for sale on CD

PRS and Copywrite

Subject: Copyright material on websites
From: banksie
Date: 11 Apr 09 - 11:53 AM

A band I am in plans to record some demo tracks, some of which will be copyright to others. We do not plan to sell anything (except, hopefully, ourselves) or allow for tracks to be downloadable, but don't want to fall foul of legalities in the area.

We have discovered the following: the `Limited Online Exploitation Licence (LOEL) Limited download / on demand streaming service Band A`.

This will allow us to load any music on to our website with less than 45,000 streams (downloads per annum). It costs £107 + VAT. lf you want to view the site please go to www.prsformusic.com/loel.

Any experts here know whether this is OK, the best option/worst option, or has opinions to offer on this issue we love to hear them.