In a message dated 5/24/2008 9:55:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:
Close paraphrases intended to avoid a copyvio can change the meaning of a passage entirely. >>
-------------------- Not that you are here directly suggesting it, but just to address an issue of "paraphrasing in order to avoid a copyvio", in case anyone was confused.
You do not violate copyright by quoting your source. The only time you would would be if you are quoting so much of the material that it makes it unnecessarily for people to buy the work, or if you are quoting the *heart* of the work. The *heart* being understood to be the '''main or only reason''' that people want to buy the work.
Otherwise, you are free to quote any source and ref the source.
Will Johnson
**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/24/2008 9:55:46 A.M. saintonge writes:
Close paraphrases intended to avoid a copyvio can change the meaning of a passage entirely. >>
Not that you are here directly suggesting it, but just to address an issue of "paraphrasing in order to avoid a copyvio", in case anyone was confused.
You do not violate copyright by quoting your source. The only time you would would be if you are quoting so much of the material that it makes it unnecessarily for people to buy the work, or if you are quoting the *heart* of the work. The *heart* being understood to be the '''main or only reason''' that people want to buy the work.
Otherwise, you are free to quote any source and ref the source.
I'm not saying that direct quotes are in fact copyvios. They fall well within the bounds of fair use. This does not prevent some editors from acting as if they were. We also want our own original writing.
Ec