> If you paraphrase a passage from a book by hand that is still copyright infringement.
If you have case law examples, it would be useful to cite them, but in general this not true. It can true when the paraphrasing is substantially similar to the original work. It would not be true, for example, if you paraphrase using all different words and a lot less of them. Copyright only protects the fixed tangible expression of the work, not the idea behind it.
>Copyright only protects the fixed tangible expression of the work
It also protects against people making modifications to these works. When people parphrase something they typically do so by taking the original work, swapping words with synonyms, and shuffling the order.
Yeah, that’s true. I think this might hinge on the word ‘paraphrasing’ though. That word generally means summarizing using your own words, not playing mad libs on the original text.
If you have case law examples, it would be useful to cite them, but in general this not true. It can true when the paraphrasing is substantially similar to the original work. It would not be true, for example, if you paraphrase using all different words and a lot less of them. Copyright only protects the fixed tangible expression of the work, not the idea behind it.