There has been a lot said on the forum and in the press about copying copyrighted material. This confuses some people, some people get angry and some will just carry on copying material.
I hope that the answer to all your questions lie below once and for all.
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.