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 !