Paraphrase and Fair Use

[Carol]

One last time, I hope. Paraphrasing that completely rephrases the
original is not copying and therefore not copyright infringement.

Here's a short quotation from a site called Fair Use in a Nutshell:

"Synthesizing facts in your own words is better than verbatim copying.
However, close paraphrasing may constitute copyright infringement if
done extensively."

http://copylaw.com/new_articles/fairuse.html

Note "*close* paraphrasing," not paraphrasing per se. I think the
problem is that many people don't know a good paraphrase from a bad
one and think that a paraphrase is the same as an indirect quotation,
which it is not.

Here's an excellent definition/explanation from a different website,
admittedly geared toward avoiding plagiarism rather than copyright
infringement:

"A good paraphrase presents the essence of what someone else has
written or said, but in no way does it present the wording--or even
the same sentence structure and organisation--contained in the original."

http://www.ajdrake.com/e434_spr_04/materials/guides/wr_plagiphrasing.htm

IOW, a good paraphrase is no longer recognizable as the original
author's words or expression. It must, of course, still be credited to
avoid plagiarism, and citing sources is a good idea to avoid copyright
problems as well.

According to Fair Use in a Nutshell, citing sources, while not
sufficient in itself to determine fair use, does help:

"Lack of credit, or improper credit, weighs against finding fair use.
However, giving someone appropriate credit, will not, alone transform
a 'foul' use into a 'fair use.'"

http://copylaw.com/new_articles/fairuse.html

And BTW. I looked up the Berne Convention's Fair Use policy, which
Goddlefrood tells us supersedes copyright law. Here it is, short and
sweet (well, short and simple, actually):

BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)

"Article 10

"(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has
already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that
their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does
not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from
newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries.

"(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the
Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between
them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the
purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in
publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching,
provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice.

"(3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding
paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and
of the name of the author, if it appears thereon. 

IOW, you really should cite your source when you're quoting. Nothing
about paraphrasing, which apparently doesn't count as "copying" for
the purposes of the Berne Convention. Also, the U.S. Fair Use
Doctrine, though not quite so simple, does not appear to be in
conflict with this one. I could be wrong on one or both counts,
however, as I didn't look at anything except this one provision.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/10.html

On another source that I'm not citing because I couldn't tell who the
author was or what his credentials were, I found the interesting
remark that "only a judge can distinguish between ideas and
expression." Maybe we should let it rest there.

Carol, for whom "expression" (in a literary work) means "the way in
which ideas are expressed" and of necessity includes the actual words
used to express those ideas