Descriptions can be similar and use similar words without being plagiarized. It’s when a passage is deliberately copied (or only slightly changed) that an author runs into trouble. The passages above wouldn’t make me look twice, honestly.

a girl of elegant height, perhaps eighteen or nineteen years of age—gawky and coltish, all legs and arms, but with the promise of stunning beauty to add graceful curves to the lean lines of her body. She was dressed in a pair of my blue jeans, cut off at the tops of her muscled thighs, and my own T-shirt, tied off over her abdomen. A pentacle amulet… lay over her heart, between the curves of her modest breasts. Her skin was pale, almost luminous, her hair a shade of brown-gold, like ripe wheat, her eyes a startling, storm-cloud grey in contrast. A smile lit up her face, made her eyes dance with secret fires that still, even after all the years, made me draw in a sharp breath. Elaine. Beautiful, vital, and as poisonous as any snake. (from Jim Butcher, Published Author.)

From the back of the room came a young woman, tall, still gawky and coltish, all legs and arms looking in her late teens, but based on her academic standings must be much older. Her hair was pulled back and she wore thick glasses: definitely not beautiful, or even handsome, but she held herself with poise and it made the lean lines of her body seem graceful and intellectual. She wore pointy-heeled boots, tight boot-cut jeans and a cotton blouse of yellow and she sported a no-nonsense frown. “Thank you, Mr. President.”

Thanks

I have to ask–and I’m not being snotty–why would you use it? To use it as a resource, to springboard from it, or to put the idea of it into your own words is one thing. To simply lift it is another.

Totally agree. I think I had this question because I wondered how protected articles and such are on the internet. I often use all sorts of things on the internet (but I don’t lift them).

I’m just wondering how the laws apply with all the new technology. Plus, I want to make sure I understand what I can use (and give credit due) and what I can’t use at all. Does that make sense?

I’m not certain, but I think this is an example of a paid comment.

WC – it seems to me that Creative Commons is just another way of bundling rights because each creator of original work has an immediate copyright to that original work once it is created. I.e., it is not copyrighted while it is in your head, but once you put words to paper or images to paper, etc., it becomes “yours”. Creative Commons then is way for you to reserve your rights but still allow you to share your work.

Because enforcement is nearly impossible without the registration of a copyright, I feel that Creative Commons is more of a community ethical agreement. I.e., it is an honor code. In a legal sense, when a person licenses her work under CC, she is giving a set of permissions to users (copyright, as Robin says, is about permission).

Umm, no. The PS is b/c Jane’s profile blurb says she’s looking for contemporary romance recommendations so I recommended. As far as I know, the paid commenters are for no-name books. Phillips and Gibson are big names who don’t need to promote themselves that way.

I get paid comments on my blog too and they’re really obvious b/c the comments usually have nothing to do with the post and there’s usually a link to some advertiser’s site. Did you even bother to read my comment? Why would I waste my time writing a really long comment about plagiarism and copyright issues as it pertains to bloggers, if all I wanted to do was shill?