But, what is copy? It is an odd word, because the true definition of copy, is the replication of something or to make a replication of something. So, when referring to written copy, do we mean that it’s a replication of other writing, other copy? Sure, sometimes it is, but to avoid plagiarism, one can reconstruct the original copy to appear different, and therefore is not a true copy anymore. So, then should it be called copy or ‘copyless’?
Mm? Confusing, right?
Let us think about what a copywriter is. Is a copywriter, given the previous definition, someone that copies copy? In a way, yes, but most times a copywriter creates copy that isn’t copied from anywhere else. So, would that copywriter then be rather a ‘copylesswriter’?
Have I completely confused you? And, what is the point of all of this?
I, personally, prefer not to use the word COPY when referring to the written word. Actually, even when referring to other forms of media, as in video, sound and advertising mediums, I don’t like to call them copy. But, many do. So, to avoid confusion, let us rather veto the word copy completely. Let’s use the word CONTENT.
I don’t copy anything. Sure, I may review other written works in order to gain some insight into a topic, but in the end, I don’t copy what was written there before. If its an opinion piece, original words are paramount. If it’s calling on stats and research material, then there is an element of copy, however, with well-constructed words, one can put together a very original piece.
The word content, in fact, can broadly stretch across many mediums, including those videos, sound bites, and advertising. If we just stick to the word content, we will avoid anyone ever thinking that we are copying what was originally created.