Article rewriting

Like it or not, that's the way it is. But if you change every "thought," then you're not actually re-writing to begin with. Re-writing is keeping all of those "thoughts" and simply putting them into different words. Re-writing a single article is copyright infringement. Pulling information from others isn't the issue. It's pulling only from a single source, and not adding anything truly your own to it where the problems lie. Re-wording something isn't "writing," - it's stealing a complete collection of thoughts and ideas b/c you're too damned lazy to think for yourself - and it's illegal. Always use multiple sources if you're completely researching an article because you have nothing to bring to it yourself (ideally, you wouldn't write about anything where you didn't have value to add, but obviously given the market around here that's wishful thinking).

 

well i have a "like it or not," for you. Like it or not, the copyright quote you suppled clearly explained that one could change something as much as they want, and it would still be copyright infringement. hmmmm, seems as if EVERY ARTICLE EVER WRITTEN AFTER THE FIRST ONE EVER WRITTEN IS INFRINGING ON THAT FIRST ARTICLE. Unless of course, that quote was incorrect.......................

 

The quote is very much correct. You can't alter a single work and claim that you own the copyright. Re-writing is not the same as using source material for research (which would account for quite a lot of articles). It's really not that difficult of a concept.

 

Technically, every article can be considered as just an EXTREMELY altered copy of another article. It's a Paradox.

 

Not even close to "every" article can be considered an altered copy of another article. Are there a lot? Yes. Are those legal? Depends where you live - it's a copyright violation in the US, and you don't have to like it for it to be true.

 

What's funny?

You just said your article is completely different. It's a different topic, different thoughts and different presentation. Therefore, it doesn't count as a derivative work.

Not sure what your point was.

Read up on what a derivative work is and isn't.

 

jhmattern, I found many site offer PLR for free. If I download it and rewrite. Is this OK?

 

Read the terms on the PLR site. But I would never use free PLR articles - You don't know where they're really coming from or if the person giving them away really has rights to them (I've seen cases where people just copy or rewrite content they don't have the right to rewrite, and then try to pass them off as PLR when they don't have the legal right to do so).

 

Well, JH, your quote said nothing of derivative work, so i just assumed it was more or less stand alone, as you depicted that way. In such a case, yes, any work would be an alteration of another work. A complete alteration.

 

A new work is not an "alteration" - even a "complete alteration" - just because it covers the same subject matter or in some way uses the same non-protected facts as another piece.

 

whatever you obviously don't understand how obviously wrong you are so lets stop fighting

 

"Obviously" this thread isn't going anywhere constructive anymore. So rather than spread even more bad information, thread closed.