Copyright ©


Good Thursday to you all.  It occurred to me as I share  pictures and stuff that there needs to be respect for the Copyright. Many of the things I do share on this blog, on my Facebook page, through emails, twitter, etc.,are pictures and jokes that have been shared so much and have been around so long that it is impossible to find the original poster or owner. I do try to find them. is a great place to look. It is a reverse image search engine. Many times I can find the owner or original poster and I give credit. Many times I can not find. My favorite is when the creator puts their name, mark website, whatever on the picture itself. That makes it easy and I have to do nothing.  I do this work because I put my own original photos and writings on the web. Love it when folks share, it  is what I live for. I hate it, though, when they remove my website from the pictures or my name and actually copyright markor my name from my writings. On the photos, I try to be unobtrusive with my mark so you can see pictures but I am rapidly thinking of making it obnoxious and impossible to remove without ruining the pic. That would be a shame. I would hate to do that.  I give credit where credit is due and hope others do the same for me. Here this should help explain it.

Copyright Explained (if you have the patience to read it)!

© The Department of Redundancy Department Copyright Department Copyright, 1999


When you write copy you have the right to copyright the copy you write. You can write good and copyright but copyright doesn’t mean copy good – it might not be right good copy, right?

Now, writers of religious services write rite, and thus have the right to copyright the rite they write.

Conservatives write right copy, and have the right to copyright the right copy they write. A right wing cleric might write right rite, and have the right to copyright the right rite he has the right to write. His editor has the job of making the right rite copy right before the copyright would be right. Then it might be copy good copyright.

Should Thom Wright decide to write, 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 copyright, so Wright would have the legal right to right the wrong. Right?

Legals write writs which is a right or not write writs right but all writs, copied or not, are writs that are copyright. Judges make writers write writs right.

Advertisers write copy which is copyright 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.


Copyright 1991 Shelley Herman S.P.E.B.S.Q.S.A., Whittier Chapter.
Adapted and Appended by Scott Simmerman. If you wish to copy or write
this as copy, please be certain to copy right the copyright — contributed to
Swenny’s E-Mail Funnies by Carter Olson, St. Paul, MN









An advertisement for copyright and patent preparation services from 1906, when copyright registration formalities were still required in the US. (found at