Quoting Somebody Else's Work Properly

Attribution is not permission

The most common misunderstanding, and the one that causes most of the trouble.

Naming the source is a courtesy and an ethical requirement. It does not, by itself, create a right to reproduce anything.

Copying an entire article and crediting the author is still copying the entire article. Using a photograph and linking to the photographer is still using the photograph.

Attribution and permission are separate questions, and a page can satisfy the first while failing the second completely.

This is a general description rather than legal advice, and the specifics vary by jurisdiction and circumstance.

Short quotation is normal practice

Quoting a sentence or two from a published source, marked as a quotation and attributed, is ordinary and is how writing has always worked.

Most jurisdictions provide for limited use of copyrighted material for purposes such as criticism, review, news reporting, research, and private study, which in Canada falls under fair dealing and elsewhere under comparable provisions.

These provisions are not a blanket allowance. They depend on the purpose, how much is taken, whether it substitutes for the original, and other factors weighed together.

A business blog quoting two sentences to discuss them is squarely in normal territory. A business blog reproducing an article to save readers visiting it is not.

The practical rules

• Quote briefly, a line or two rather than paragraphs.
• Mark it clearly as a quotation, visually.
• Name the author and publication.
• Link to the original where it exists online.
• Add something: discuss it rather than merely reproduce it.
• Never take the substance of a piece and republish it.

The fifth is the one that separates legitimate use from copying. If the quotation is there to be discussed, you are writing. If it is there to be read instead of the original, you are republishing.

Statistics and figures

Facts themselves are generally not owned. The particular expression of them, and a compiled dataset, can be.

Citing a figure and naming its source is standard and expected.

Reproducing an entire table, or a substantial extract from a report, is a different matter and often requires permission even with attribution.

There is also a practical reason to cite properly that has nothing to do with rights. A figure without a source is worth very little to a knowledgeable reader, who cannot check it and will discount it accordingly.

Cite the original, not where you found it

A discipline worth adopting, and one most business writing ignores.

Statistics travel. A figure appears in a trade magazine, which took it from an industry summary, which took it from a survey, and by the time it reaches you the context has usually been lost and sometimes the number has changed.

Follow it back to the original and cite that, checking what it actually measured, over what period, and of whom.

A surprising number of widely repeated figures turn out to be older than expected, about a different population, or untraceable to any original at all.

Images are the bigger risk

Text quotation rarely causes a business real trouble. Images routinely do.

An image found through a search engine is not available for use, and no attribution changes that.

Enforcement is also systematic in a way it is not for text, since agencies and photographers use automated matching to find copies, and the first contact is often an invoice.

The safe sources are images you took, images you paid for under a licence covering your use, and images released under a licence you have read rather than assumed.

Where a licence requires attribution in a particular form, follow it exactly, since that is a condition of the permission rather than a suggestion.

A worked example

A consultancy published a piece built around a trade publication's article, quoting several paragraphs and reproducing a chart, with the publication named and linked.

They received a request to remove the chart and reduce the quoted material.

They had assumed that crediting and linking made it acceptable, and had been careful about the credit precisely because they thought that was the requirement.

The rewrite quoted one sentence, described the chart's finding in their own words with a link to it, and added their own analysis of what it meant for their clients.

The result was a better piece: it said something the original did not, rather than restating it at length.

The exchange was resolved without further consequence, largely because they responded quickly and had not been trying to pass anything off.

Quoting customers and staff

A different set of considerations, and one businesses handle casually.

A testimonial, a review, or something a customer said in an email is their words, and publishing it needs their agreement.

Reviews left on a public platform are a partial exception in that they were published deliberately, though platforms have their own terms about reproducing them and it is worth asking anyway.

For anything from private correspondence, ask, and confirm how they want to be identified: full name, first name, or initials and a town.

The same applies to quoting staff, including former staff, whose words in an internal context were not offered for publication.

What to do if you get it wrong

Most of these situations resolve quietly if handled promptly.

Take the material down first and discuss afterwards, since continuing to publish while negotiating makes everything worse.

Respond rather than ignoring it. Silence tends to escalate a request into something more formal.

Where an invoice arrives for image use, it is reasonable to check the claim is genuine and the amount defensible before paying, and reasonable to take advice on anything substantial.

Then find out how it got onto the site, because the answer is usually a process problem that will otherwise repeat.

The counter-case

Excessive caution has its own cost, and some businesses overcorrect into never referencing anything.

A page that discusses no external work, cites no figures, and quotes nobody is weaker and less credible, and avoiding all reference is not what the rules require.

Commentary, criticism, and review are precisely the activities the provisions exist to protect. Quoting a line in order to disagree with it is a normal and defensible use.

The distinction to hold is between using material and taking it: a short quotation that supports your own argument is using, and reproducing enough that nobody needs the original is taking.

Before publishing

1. Check every quotation is short and clearly marked.
2. Name the author and publication for each.
3. Trace figures to the original source.
4. Confirm every image is yours, licensed, or permitted.
5. Follow attribution conditions exactly where a licence sets them.
6. Get agreement for anything a person said privately.
7. Ask whether you added something or merely reproduced.

Item four is where the actual financial risk sits, and it takes the least time to check.

Image rights are covered in using a photo you did not take.

Frequently asked questions

West Coast Media Solutions Inc. provides web design, web development, hosting, digital marketing, and business consulting to organisations across Canada, drawing on more than twenty-five years in the field.