Dear all,

I can't see the logic of the OA answer. Anyone wants to give it a try?

Bill: The newspaper discontinued Dr. Andrews' weekly humor column because the editor said that he had plagiarized the work of another humorist. Dr. Andrews explained, however, that much of the column's material was from stories submitted by readers and that he had no idea that the offending items had been written by another humorist. Since his use of the items was innocent, Dr. Andrews' column should be reinstated.

Kathy: That's not the point. No one accused Dr. Andrews of violating another author's copyright. The offense was that he passed off material as his own that he had not actually written. And so it was plagiarism even though the owner of the copyrighted material wrote to the newspaper to say that he did not think that Dr. Andrews had intentionally stolen from him.

Q. Which one of the following principles best justifies Bill's defense of Dr. Andrews?

(A) A writer can quote without attribution if it appears that the material is in common circulation.
(B) An author is entitled to quote without attribution if the copyright owner will later grant permission.
(C) A humorist can retell anecdotes submitted by readers only after doing a thorough search for the source.
(D) An author has an absolute right to quote hers or his previously published work without need of attribution.
(E) Literary works that are no longer under copyright protection can be freely quoted by any writer.