Yes, and there is always indirect quotation--the one time I love "that."
>>> David Boyd <[log in to unmask]> 03/25/08 2:15 PM >>>
In a message dated 25/03/2008 16:35:26 GMT Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
It may sound ok, but unfortunately I learned differently when we had even
tiny quotes in the Cambridge book. We had to remove them. I still don't know
how to address the problem, but one point here is that Eliot's work is not
out of copyright. It continues until long after the poet's death, not just
the copyright date. Hence the fact that no one can read Eliot's letters to
Emily Hale, though they are long past any copyright date or the poet's death. I
thought it was 50 years, but I think the letters can not be seen until 2019
or 2020. And even TWL--from 1922--is still not out of copyright. It's held
by the estate, i.e., Valerie, and charges for even slight quotations are very
high. It's ironic for a poet whose own work is a mass of lines from other
Tracking down permissions is one of the long and tiresome tasks of editing.
I knew the number of years once but no longer remember for certain.
I'm sure Rick can give us the details on dates----Rick?
Often only the actual quotations will be meaningful, but if it can be
otherwise, much is possible nevertheless. For example, and invoking mandatory TSE
content, Peter Ackroyd masterfully circumvented the problem in his TSE
biography and is quoted himself as saying having to accomplish that made him an
expert in the art of precis and circumlocution !