Another Summary of Fair Use (corretions)

[Carol]

Carol earlier:

> My point, since it was apparently clear, is that it may not be too
late, even now, to avoid prolonged litigation and appeals. 

Carol again:

"Apparently unclear," I meant. :-0

Carol earlier:
> As it stands, an author has the right to write or approve an
abridgement (because an abridgement would be entirely her own words
arranged as she wrote them but with omissions) but not a work of
literary criticism (which is considered fair use as long as it doesn't
quote substantial extracts without permission). 

Carol again:

Before anyone jumps on me for stating that a writer can't write
literary criticism of her own work, that's not what I meant to say. I
meant that an author has the right to create her own abridgement or
authorize someone else to do it because the abridgement is her own
words in shortened form, but she doesn't have the right to authorize
or refuse to authorize literary criticism (meaning literary analysis)
whether she agrees with the critic's interpretation or not. As long as
the literary critic confines the quotations within reasonable limits
(which will vary according to the nature of the article--something
along the lines of the Gollum article I referred to earlier will
require substantial side-by-side extracts from two editions of the
same book) and doesn't claim the author's words as his own (which can
happen with an unattributed close paraphrase that picks up the
original author's phrasing without quotation marks), the literary
critic is protected by fair use. Substantial extracts, however,
require permission.

Carol, apologizing for not catching and rewriting the unclear passage
(and correcting the misleading typo) before hitting Send