[K2L8M11N2]

I think this essay is relevant here: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

> Suppose you publish an article that happens to contain a sentence identical to one from this article, like "The law sees Colour." That's just four words, all of them common, and it might well occur by random chance. Maybe you were thinking about similar ideas to mine and happened to put the words together in a similar way. If so, fine. But maybe you wrote "your" article by cutting and pasting from "mine" - in that case, the words have the Colour that obligates you to follow quotation procedures and worry about "derivative work" status under copyright law and so on. Exactly the same words - represented on a computer by the same bits - can vary in Colour and have differing consequences. When you use those words without quotation marks, either you're an author or a plagiarist depending on where you got them, even though they are the same words. It matters where the bits came from.

[jibbit]

this is a basic misunderstanding of copyright

[Wowfunhappy]

Is the GP misunderstanding copyright, or is GP describing a common basic misunderstanding?

If the former, could you please elaborate? I also frequently cite this article in discussions.