Talk:Paraphrasing of copyrighted material

Tags
I just tagged this article as I have concerns about WP:SYNTH. Pinging who wrote the article: which of the sources are secondary sources that actually talk about paraphrasing of copyrighted material and support the statements in wikivoice  and ? This article is well-written and obviously has many sources, but it reads to me like an analysis piece that is combining a bunch of sources (mostly individual court cases, most of which, at least the modern ones, stand for the proposition that paraphrasing is not copyright violation) to reach a conclusion that is not reached by any of the sources (that paraphrasing is, or often is, or might be, copyright violation). Are there secondary sources (not court cases) that give WP:SIGCOV of "paraphrasing of copyrighted material"? Levivich 16:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This article was developed during a discussion on wp:close paraphrasing to record what experts had to say on the subject, which turned out to be a lot. Searches on terms like paraphrase copyright found sources that discuss the issue in general such as Barret, Bently, Fishman and Head, which point to court cases that illustrate aspects of the subject. The article does not try to prove any point. If there is any conclusion, it is in the quotation from Judge Learned Hand in the section on Comparison approaches. The lead statement "Paraphrasing of copyrighted material may reduce the probability that a court will find that copyright has been infringed; however, there have been many cases where a paraphrase that uses quite different words and sentence structure has been found to infringe on a prior work's copyright." simply summarizes the rest of the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. With respect to "many cases," that doesn't summarize the article, because the article doesn't contain many cases, but a few. If no source actually says "many cases," then we shouldn't say that in wikivoice; it should be removed. Hand is obsolete, but also that quote doesn't say that a paraphrase of a work may infringe on copyright or that there are many cases where a paraphrase has been found to infringe on a prior work's copyright. I will take a look at Barret, Bently, Fishman and Head. I'm concerned this article was written to justify wp:close paraphrasing. Levivich 18:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Head p. 243 says that paraphrasing is not copyright infringement, and that the paraphrase actually enjoys its own copyright protection, but that translation can be copyright infringement, and this he describes as a continuum. I'm not seeing at first glance where Bently or Barret talk about when plagiarism is or is not copyright infringement--can you provide pages? Google Books doesn't have Fishman preview for me, can you provide quote? I have some reservations about Nolo as an RS for this because it's a "do-it-yourself-legal" publisher, not academic. Levivich 18:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I found a Fishman preview, I see he writes on p. 276, "...paraphrasing constitutes copyright infringement if there is a substantial amount of it..." Does anyone else say this? Levivich 19:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. The article was written to document what the sources say. You could drop the word "many", although I think it is accurate. Hand is not obsolete: he is still quoted often. He notes that a copy or close paraphrase infringes, but as there is less and less similarity an indefinable point is reached where there is no infringement. Examples are given of paraphrases that were and were not considered infringements depending on the degree of creative expression that was carried across, which would also apply to a translation. Plagiarism is not an infringement if the work is out of copyright. Nolo books are written by lawyers for the general public, and will get much closer scrutiny than most academic papers. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hand died in 1966 and I have no idea why you think a do-it-yourself legal book written by lawyers for the general public will get more scrutiny than most academic papers, but putting all that aside for now, is there any other source besides Fishman that says paraphrasing can be copyright infringement? Levivich 12:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of the sources discuss paraphrasing, such as Barrett and Bently, Davis & Ginsburg. Most of the cited legal opinions are about paraphrasing. A paraphrase can violate copyright if it is substantial and carries across more than the mere facts. This is the view of all the sources that discuss the question and has been confirmed in case after case. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask which sources discuss paraphrasing, I asked which sources say that paraphrasing can be copyvio. Please provide page numbers for those books your referencing, because I don't see it. Quotes would be even more helpful. Levivich 13:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Every statement in the article is supported by a citation that gives the source and page number. Most can be seen online. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement is not supported by a citation, that's why I added a citation needed tag to it and I'm now asking for that citation to be provided. Levivich 14:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That statement is in the lead to the section on "Sample court findings", which it summarizes. The section cites various examples of cases where judges found that copyright had or had not been infringed by a paraphrase, with the reasoning of the judges. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You have tagged the article to say it is factually inaccurate, presents personal views and includes original research. Can you be more specific? Do you think that the conclusion that a court may find that a paraphrase violates copyright is incorrect, a personal view or original research? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the statement "a paraphrase violates copyright" is not supported by the sources, not when stated as such a broad generality. I think the sources would support a much more narrow statement such as "a substantial amount of very close paraphrasing has in the past been found by some US courts to infringe copyright in certain limited cases under certain specific infringement tests, typically involving works of fiction rather than fact, and these cases are the exceptions to the general rule that paraphrasing does not violate copyright because copyright protects specific unique expression of ideas and not the ideas themselves." I think it violates WP:NOR to cite to a few specific court cases and write analysis in wikivoice. We should be summarizing the analysis of the reliable, scholarly secondary sources about this topic and summarizing the discussion of court cases in those secondary sources rather than citing to the cases directly and writing our own analysis of them. Levivich 19:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It could be argued that the primary source is the law and the judges are secondary sources in their interpretation of what the law implies. Certainly their opinions are relevant, as are those of the academics who have written about the subject and whose views are summarized. If you search on any of the case titles you will find extensive commentary: the cases established key precedents. Sometimes both a judge's ruling and academic comments on that ruling are given. Regardless, nowhere does the article say "a paraphrase violates copyright". It only says "a paraphrase may violate copyright if...". Where is the article factually inaccurate? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If there were studies of the nature, frequency and success rates of copyright cases with different types of content, such as fiction /fact /news /opinion, text /image /music /audiovisual etc., that would certainly make an interesting addition to the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Any comments on the tags added to this article? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * please do not remove the tags while these issues remain unresolved. I am waiting for you to answer my questions above (specifically, please provide quotes/page numbers from the books that you say support the statements that I say are not supported by RSes, because I can't find it in the books you mentioned so far). I was also waiting to see if any of the editors you pinged would chime in (not sure how you selected those names exactly, I guess they're all CCI admins?, but it doesn't matter, all opinions are welcome here). Let me list some more of the problems with this article in addition to what we've discussed above:
 * It does not differentiate between legal jurisdictions, in some sections talking about US and UK law in the same breath (for example, the "merger doctrine" discussion mixes up US law with UK law, as if all the courts were talking about the same merger doctrine; they're not)
 * It does not differentiate between "old law" and modern law
 * For US law, it does not differentiate between legal jurisdictions, for example, describing a 2nd circuit decision as if it applied universally
 * For US law, it does not differentiate between works of fact and non-factual works, which the RSes report have different rules when it comes to paraphrasing and copyright infringement (for example, the merger doctrine, which applies to factual works, is discussed in the same section as the doctrine of scenes a faire, which is for fictional works, without explaining that fact and fiction works will be evaluated under different tests, at least in the US)
 * For US law, it does not differentiate between the different tests of copyright infringement, and how paraphrasing is handled differently under the different tests
 * There is original analysis of court cases in wikivoice, which violates WP:SYNTH
 * You recently added a cite to the 1939 edition of Corpus Juris Secundum... that's way, way out of date. CJS is updated annually. The current edition will not say the same thing as the edition written 82 years ago (this is similar to quoting Hand, who died in 1966; these early-20th-century sources are not RS for current law)
 * I want to acknowledge and thank you for removing the unsourced statement "A paraphrase of a work may infringe on copyright if the 'protected expression' in the paraphrase is similar to that in the prior work." But you know, if we don't have a source for that statement, we probably don't have a source for the whole article, since that is the thesis of the article... The truth is, as I said above, that whether a paraphrase is or is not copyvio will depend on many many factors, like what court you're in, whether it's a work of fact or fiction, and what test the court will employ.
 * Fixing these problems will require a re-write and probably removing all of the original analysis. Beyond that, the article should probably be moved to "Paraphrasing of copyright material in the United States" since almost all the sources are talking about US law. (Also, while I could write the US law version of this article, I am not competent to write a global version; that's too ambitious.) Additionally, I'm not sure there is enough material to justify having a separate article about "Paraphrasing of copyright material in the United States", and so that article should probably just be merged back to "Copyright in the United States", and paraphrasing can be addressed as a section in that article. Levivich 17:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess the TLDR is: what do you think about merging this article to a section of "Copyright in the United States" (and writing that section by summarizing current, secondary RS)? Levivich 19:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I pinged all active admins in Category:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup members. But I can see why they would not want to get sucked into a discussion like this.
 * You may be reading too much into this article. I just searched on "paraphrase"+"copyright" and summarized what the more reputable sources said. Often when a case was mentioned I went directly to the text of that case, which is in the public domain, rather than paraphrasing the source's paraphrase. Perhaps that was a mistake. The article is not limited to current law but reflects has been said about the subject over the years, which in English-language searches is naturally biased towards the US. I would like to see it expanded to discuss other jurisdictions.
 * The UK and US both follow common law and have similar concepts. Both struggle to give precision to ideas like "substantial similarity" and "protected expression". US copyright law is federal. A 2nd-circuit finding would apply throughout the US, at least in theory. US law does not define tests other than section §107, but leaves that up to the judges. The article mentions some proposed tests. I did not find a discussion of non-fiction versus fiction, although most of the examples discuss non-fiction. Presumably it is easier to disguise copying in a work of fiction.
 * I would be opposed to any attempt to merge this article into Copyright in the United States. The subject deserves a stand-alone article. It would help if you could give examples of factual inaccuracy, personal reflections or original research. If you cannot, I will remove the tags again. Aymatth2 (talk)
 * Please answer my questions before you ask me more questions. I just listed seven specific examples of problems, and your response to that was more original research (statements of what the law is without any citation to a reliable sources). I'm saying that your answers are not supported by RS, but more to the point, that the analysis in the article isn't supported by RS, and there are seven specific examples above. Those aren't all the problems (I haven't fact checked the entire article and I won't), but at the very least, those seven problems need to be resolved before the tags can be cleared. Levivich 21:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I answered your points above. The article simply summarizes what the sources say. There is nothing controversial about it. If you cannot give any examples of factual inaccuracy, personal reflections or original research, I will remove the tags. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you get to decide when the tags are removed? You have dismissed my concerns; you haven't backed up anything you've said with a citation (with page number or quote) to a source. I'm looking for more cooperation here and fewer ultimatums. Levivich 21:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

There are three different meanings of paraphrase that can be confused. . One is paraphrase in the legal sense in which it is used in various copyright laws. Most of the discussion above is about that, and I have nothing to add, except that I learned most of what I know of this 50 years ago myself, and only about the US, and I generally find I need to catch up. The other meaning I knew, which I used before Wikipedia is the academic sense, in which paraphrase  unless directly quoted  or attributed, is treated like plagiarism, and my job was to help students avoid it (I should mention that it's usually interpreted much more  strictly in  higher level work than with beginning students). It is normally much more strict than any legal standard I have seen suggested, especially for serious academic work, and applies of course to material whether or not protected by copyright.

The 3rd is WP, which uses language in its own way. . We usually give contributors the advice to avoid direct copying by paraphrase, and some of the paraphrase that I have seen suggested is so close that I am very uncomfortable with it. Much of it seems to be, just change it enough to not trigger the copyvio detector. If that's what we really think is enough to avoid overly close paraphrase, I think it's poor advice. I have no idea if it meets the legal standard anywhere, but I know it does not meet even a loose academic standard. But then, so many things in WP are in that position that I do not make a point of disagreeing with it.  DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Break and restart
Let me try to address your points one by one.
 * I get the impression you are mainly uncomfortable with the lead section as opposed to any specific statement in the body of this article. I propose to rewrite the lead so it is a more complete summary of each section of the article. I will not give sources, which are redundant in the lead, but will try to accurately reflect what the sourced statements in the body say. I ask that you do not plaster the new lead with tags, but instead raise any concerns you have here so they can be addressed. You also seem concerned that the article is not restricted to the current US law, but contains a fair amount of historical material. I do not plan to change that – to me the evolution of concepts is interesting and belongs in the article. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? I get the impression you're not engaging with me in good faith. After all I've written above, how can you say you think my problems are mainly with the lead? You do not WP:OWN this article and I'm done spending time trying to work with you. I will fix these problems and clear the tags myself when I have time, or maybe someone else will come along that I can work with. Levivich 12:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ...it reads to me like an analysis piece that is combining a bunch of sources (mostly individual court cases, most of which, at least the modern ones, stand for the proposition that paraphrasing is not copyright violation) to reach a conclusion that is not reached by any of the sources (that paraphrasing is, or often is, or might be, copyright violation).
 * As has pointed out, a paraphrase can indeed be a copyright violation. The article gives various examples of where that was found to be so. Of course, a paraphrase can avoid copyright violation, and the article gives examples of that too. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I started the article almost ten years ago, trying to document what had been said about the subject. One of the problems, as I recall, was the mass of available material. Another was the lack of English language sources on non-English jurisdictions. Having more recently skimmed through the copyright laws of almost every country in the world to start articles like w:commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mauritania I would be more confident now that sources could be found, and that they would be similar to those used for the article. I struggled a bit with organization, and settled on concept-period-country as the most natural. The common law countries are very similar, and the civil law countries have a lot in common. They all agree that substantial copying of a protected work is not allowed, a loose paraphrase of a minor portion of a work is allowed, and there is a large grey area in between. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It does not differentiate between legal jurisdictions, in some sections talking about US and UK law in the same breath (for example, the "merger doctrine" discussion mixes up US law with UK law, as if all the courts were talking about the same merger doctrine; they're not)
 * The article It is organized by concept rather than by jurisdiction. It identifies when it is talking about UK, US or other law, and may discuss how judges in different jurisdictions have viewed the same problem. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It does not differentiate between "old law" and modern law
 * The nature of common law is that old judicial opinions may be considered relevant for many years. The material is organized by concept, but within each section generally places older cases or discussions before more recent ones. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) For US law, it does not differentiate between legal jurisdictions, for example, describing a 2nd circuit decision as if it applied universally
 * US copyright law is federal. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) For US law, it does not differentiate between works of fact and non-factual works, which the RSes report have different rules when it comes to paraphrasing and copyright infringement (for example, the merger doctrine, which applies to factual works, is discussed in the same section as the doctrine of scenes a faire, which is for fictional works, without explaining that fact and fiction works will be evaluated under different tests, at least in the US)
 * The article gives examples of copyright cases for factual and fictional works, and of tests that have been proposed for either. Most tests would apply to both. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) For US law, it does not differentiate between the different tests of copyright infringement, and how paraphrasing is handled differently under the different tests
 * The article outlines some of the proposed tests. These are not written into law, but a proposal by one judge may be used by another. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) There is original analysis of court cases in wikivoice, which violates WP:SYNTH
 * When cases are cited, the article just says what the conclusion was. Most cases are discussed by an independent source. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) You recently added a cite to the 1939 edition of Corpus Juris Secundum... that's way, way out of date. CJS is updated annually. The current edition will not say the same thing as the edition written 82 years ago (this is similar to quoting Hand, who died in 1966; these early-20th-century sources are not RS for current law)
 * See above. The article covers cases and opinions from 1730 to the present date. Old opinions may or may not still be relevant. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * DGG is not an WP:RS and you canvassed him with non-neutral message. Anyway, nobody is saying a paraphrase can't be a copyright violation. That's not the issue here.
 * "organized by concept rather than by jurisdiction" is wrong. It needs to differentiate between different countries. US copyright law only applies in the US, obviously. UK copyright law only applies in the UK. No source treats them together. Combining international jurisdictions is an example of where your original research has led to error. Follow the sources.
 * "The nature of common law is that old judicial opinions may be considered relevant for many years." While true, that's besides the point. US copyright law is statutory law. Modern courts do not look at 19th century English cases when interpreting copyright law. More to the point, no source about paraphrasing and US copyright law talks about old English law. Also more to the point, it's not a problem to include "old" law unless we are suggesting that the old law is still current law. This article can have history in it, but it needs to make clear what is historical and what is modern. There is a difference between what the law is and what it used to be, in all things. When we discuss history in article, we don't cite to 100-year-old sources. We cite to modern sources that talk about history.
 * "US copyright law is federal" is true, but that doesn't mean that a 2nd circuit decision is controlling law throughout the US. Again, this is where your original research is just wrong. 2nd circuit decisions apply in the 2nd circuit. Other circuit courts can make their own decisions (and they have). That's how we get circuit splits. More to the point: secondary sources that analyze court decisions should be used as sources for our articles, rather than citing directly to the decision. One reason is because the secondary sources will supply the context, such as how broad the impact was of a particular decision (or whether it was overruled, or whether there was a circuit split, etc.).
 * "Most tests would apply to both." Again, your original research is just wrong. That's not what the sources say. The sources give the various tests and explicitly differentiate between factual and non-factual works. Giving an example of factual and non-factual is not the same thing as explaining how paraphrasing and copyright differs between the two.
 * The article doesn't outline proposed tests. Who cares about proposed tests anyway? There are actual tests that are part of case law. There are over half a dozen. They have names. When I have time to expand the article, I'll write it up. In the mean time, you can read Substantial similarity which has some of this information.
 * Citing a case and stating what the conclusion was is WP:OR. Even the selection of cases is OR. Only cases that are discussed by secondary sources should be discussed in our article, and then the analysis needs to be cited to a secondary source. That is not the case here.
 * "may or may not still be relevant" is not good enough. Again, just your original research here. The sources actually talk about which cases are still relevant and which are not. We need to say what the sources say, not just include some cases because they "may or may not still be relevant".
 * In all things, it's about secondary sources. All this text and you still haven't provided any page numbers or quotes from sources backing anything up that you're saying (and you're just wrong about so many things, like "The common law countries are very similar, and the civil law countries have a lot in common". I mean yeah I guess that's true, but not so much that they use the same tests for copyright infringement. More to the point: no source says they're similar when it comes to paraphrasing and copyright, the topic of this article; it's just your opinions here).
 * You are wasting my time by arguing with me about the law and relating your opinions about the law without sources. I am not going to spend my time discussing the law with you. From here on out, I will discuss statements in the article and the sources supporting them (or lack thereof) and nothing else. I was hoping you'd point me to sources that exist but aren't cited inline that support what the article is saying; that hasn't happened, which is fine, as I said, I will gather the sources and edit the article to fix the issues raised by the tags. Levivich 14:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The United States follows common law. Statutes tend to be short and general, and then the judges develop precedents for interpreting them. A precedent may still be relevant after a statute has been updated or replaced. Tests are proposed by judges in specific cases, and other judges may choose to use them in other cases. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See Template:Did you know nominations/Paraphrasing of copyrighted material. This article, which has not changed much since being started, was nominated by and checked by, so has been fairly carefully checked for accuracy. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A couple of suggestions:
 * If you are thinking of reducing the scope to US laws, you should should first gain consensus through a proposed move. Do not cut out all the non-US material and then propose a move. One possibility would be to start a fresh article on the subject as it pertains to the US, then reduce the amount of US-oriented material here to avoid forking. I would like to see this article expanded to include more civil law examples.
 * The cited cases are mostly seminal. That is, the rulings established important precedents and have been widely discussed. Rather than drop them, it would be better to search on their titles for sources that discuss them, and then summarize those sources.
 * Hope this helps, Aymatth2 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Levich did indeed indicate what opinion he wanted me to support .As usual,I tried not to even read that part of the request. I also made a point of responding generally, without consider or knowing what side it supported. Since the essence of my comment was that I disagree with the way WP handles this whole problem, I don't see how that could possibly support either side. I don't know much, asI  said earlier, but with reference to some of the points raised, I do know something.

1.I thought it was common knowledge that too close a paraphrase could be a copyvio in law; conceivably I'mwrong, but I certainly know it is in aademic writing. haven't the least idea which side in this I supported. 2. thinking about it or the first time, I think that for this or anything else that varies between countries, especially countries with different legal systems, organizing by jurisdiction is the standard way we write articles. For a long book, it might be appropriate to do it first by topic. 3. I would hope anyone writing about US law would know about the peculiar system where the law in different federal circuits can be different until the supreme court considers the question—if it ever does. 4. I would hope anyone writing about copyright in the US would realize that the law is changing quite radically. Idon;tthink it's right to quote seminal cases without seeing to what degree they have been supported.There's an elabotate system of citation indexes to do just that.  DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks (I think you meant to write Aymatth2 and not Levich above?). Just wanted to say that of course I know that you wouldn't be swayed in the least by any non-neutral canvassing (that's why I didn't object or comment about it before you were mentioned above), and of course you're more than welcome to join the conversation. I don't like to think of this as two "sides" and I'm sure you don't either and neither does anyone else. This is of course an ordinary content dispute, and your input on it is more than welcome (as is everyone else's). I think  Nimmer on Copyright is the leading source for summaries of US copyright law; I'll try to get a hold of it. I've also found some law review and journal articles and books that will make good sources that I plan to add to the article later this week.  Levivich 16:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, while reviewing sources, I came across this quote, which speaks directly to the issues about whether 2nd Circuit decisions apply throughout the US or not (#3 in the list above) and different tests (#5 in the list above):   Now, I don't think the details of all the tests and the circuit splits are within the scope of this article, but it just substantiates the need to mention the tests and not talk about circuit court decisions without explaining their applicability. I am working on adding more material to the article, which I think once done will allow the dispute tag to be cleared. We can then see about sourcing the remaining analysis to better sources as needed, and removing the analysis that is not in the secondary sources, which will allow the original research tag to be cleared. Then the rest can be copyedited to clear the essay tag. That should just about do it. Levivich 02:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Levivich 00:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

About removing examples: I think most of my recent edits have had self-explanatory edit summaries, but today I removed (what was left) of the "Examples" sub-section of the "In the US" section, and my explanation for this is too long for an edit summary. Lippmann, who I quote above, writes at p. 519 that US copyright law is, and she describes in some detail the various tests used by different circuit courts. In light of this, I submit that there are no example cases, because there are no cases about paraphrasing that apply across all circuits. If we choose an example case from the 2nd Circuit, like Salinger, and call it an "example case", we would give the misimpression that Salinger was a typical case, when the sources say otherwise. This is true for all these cases. Wikipedia editors can't be the ones conducting case comparisons: we can't take one source talking about one case and compare it, in wikivoice, to another source talking about another case. Any such case comparisons would have to come from a secondary source that's dong the comparison. The cases in the example section: Nutt, Wainwright Securities, Salinger, and Wright, are not supported by any secondary source conducting such a comparison (or holding them up as examples of what is typical), so I removed them. Levivich 17:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Source
Copyright Law Revision: Hearings, Ninetieth Congress, First ..., Parts 1-4 Might be helpful to decipher the sentence structure debate on whether sentence structures violate Copyright lawsVarousz (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not see that debate in . Aymatth2 (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)