Replies

It is not a personal attack to point out evidently unsourced excerpts. It can however ignite a flame war if the same poster is repeatedly needled with such accusations.

Dr. Eckleburg, if you see another post which looks like an unsourced excerpt, let me know by Freepmail.

That excerpt was perfectly sourced. The name of the source and the author were given. It may have been quoted at Catholic.com, but it is from a source written almost 1600 years ago.

From their the Catholic.com Guidelines section:

Quotation
Individuals are permitted to make brief quotations from the material on this site, in keeping with the "fair use" provisions of copyright law. In such cases, proper attribution must be made.

Attribution
When a given text does not have an author byline, Catholic Answers should be listed as the author.

When attributing, you do not have to show every place a work, long out of copyright, was quoted. The usage guidelines by Catholic.com are referring to their own unique composition in which the quote is featured, not the quotations of works themselves no longer covered by copyright. Your approach would be like someone citing a quote of Sir Winston Churchill featured in a Washington Post editorial and being accused of infringement of copyright. Not so. The WaPo may quote Churchill in an editorial, but it has no copyright of that quote that appears in their copyrighted editorial.

Against Faustus is featured in thousands of works and in quotes of St. Augustine. The point here is that someone may have a copyright on a particular work in which authors are quoted. The copyright law covers the particular work, but not the quotations of authors whose works cited are no longer under copyright.

As far as It is not a personal attack to point out evidently unsourced excerpts: It would be more accurate to say "It is not [necessarily] a personal attack to point out evidently unsourced excerpts." However, if that pointing out is contrary to actual copyright guidelines, then the one pointing it out is either ignorant of those guidelines or is bringing up a straw man argument of copyright infringement because that's an easier way of dealing with a philosophical point of contention than answering the point at hand.

I do not doubt that Catholic.com and WashingtonPost.com are credible sources for quoting their quotes. However, that would not necessarily be true with conspiracy websites, blogs, etc.

If the quote is well known and public domain (e.g. Truman's "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen") then we have no need for additional source information.

Likewise, if it is a Bible quote from a public domain translation such as KJV then no source is required. However, not every translation/paraphrase is public domain - The Message for instance requires attribution under certain circumstances.

It is better to err on the side of caution. If the quote being quoted from a quote on another website is not very well known, then even if the source is credible, source it.