Published works (text, image, sound, film, etc.) may be quoted by everyone pursuant to the limiting provision of Art. 25 para. 1 CopA; however, the quotation must serve as ‘an explanation, a reference or an illustration’ (documentary function of the quotation). A quotation which, for example, only serves as a decorative illustration is prohibited; one example is an image which has no relationship to the text.
Furthermore, the extent of the quotation must be justified by its purpose. This means you may only quote as much as is necessary from a work. However, in individual cases, this can also be an entire work, i.e. an entire poem when this is required for a textual analysis.
Quoting means that excerpts of a work protected by copyright are used word for word, true to life, note for note, etc. Conversely, this means that works that are no longer protected may be quoted without having to comply with Art. 25 CopA. The limitation of the exception of quotation (Art. 25 CopA) does not include paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is the corresponding basic adoption or summary of a (protected) text work. Unlike with quoting, you share the content in your own words when paraphrasing.
The quotation must be designated as such and the source from which the quote originates specified (Art. 25 para. 2 CopA). Furthermore, if the authorship is visible in the source, this must also be specified.
If a quotation is not disclosed as such, this is considered to be plagiarism, because the person doing the quoting is masquerading as the author of the passage or the image, etc. The author whose rights are thus infringed can take a stand against this pursuant to Art. 68 CopA.
In the case of paraphrasing but also in the case of quotes from works that are no longer protected, it is considered good scientific practice to identify the paraphrasing or quotation and specify the source – in particular in teaching and research – otherwise, this is an example of scientific misconduct.
The right of quotation pursuant to Art. 25 CopA is a mandatory law (statutory licence). It cannot be excluded by a contract. However, there are problems in this respect in relation to works which are only offered in digital form, to which the users of the work only have access when they have paid a licence fee. In this way, perception of a work – the fundamental condition to be able to quote a work – is no longer guaranteed. Although these works are basically published, only those for which a licence fee is paid for access are made available and thus also quotable. If you do not pay a licence fee, you do not receive any access to these works and also cannot quote from them as a result; whereby the exception of quotation – the right to quote published works without consent of the author – will be in vain. (c.f. also Hilty, Urheberrecht, 2011, 205f in this regard.
Plagiarism describes the ‘unauthorised adoption of third-party spiritual products; the theft of intellectual property’ (Fröhlich Gerhard, Wie rein ist die Wissenschaft? – Fälschung und Plagiat im rauen Wissenschaftsalltag, in Etzlstofer Hannes/Katzinger Willibrand/Winkler Wolfgang, echt – falsch will die Welt betrogen sein, 2003, p. 82). On the one hand, plagiarism can represent an infringement of copyright if you do not identify a quotation as such (Art. 25 CopA). Because, in this case, the person who uses the quotation without specifying the source implies that the work comes from them. However, plagiarism also generally describes situations when someone creates a work on the basis of the ideas or contents of others without clearly disclosing this fact. Plagiarism, i.e., unethical authorship, is frowned upon in academia in particular.
This scientific misconduct (which entails far more than just plagiarism, c.f. in particular the link collection ‘scientific integrity’ in this regard), depending on the guidelines of the individual universities or the Swiss National Foundation, for example, can have serious consequences such as loss of titles, exclusion from courses of study, etc. There are numerous examples and opportunities to commit plagiarism (list in accordance with the essay of G. Fröhlich mentioned above and in accordance with Weber-Wulff Debora, Copy & Paste = Plagiat? in Gasteiner Martin/ Haber Peter (Eds.), Digitale Arbeitstechniken für die Geistes- und Kulturwissenschaften, 2010, pp. 111–122):
There are not only numerous opportunities to commit plagiarism but also very different types of plagiarists. Pupils are not the only ones who have been copying from Wikipedia without citing the source for some time now. Everyone, from pupils to university students, to experts through to professors can commit plagiarism. A helpful tool to find out more about plagiarism and how you can detect it is: ‘Weber-Wulff Debora, Fremde Federn Finden – eine E-learning Einheit, 2013’.
Yes, even if they have been the subject of controversy in the literature to date, images and work excerpts are now recognised. However, in the process, it is important that you also disclose images, films and music as quotations, and correctly specify the source (Art. 25 CopA).
Yes, pursuant to the law, it is irrelevant in which medium (book, pictorial, homepage, app, film,…) a quotation is used. However, it is decisive that the quotation has an explanatory, informational or illustrative function, is covered in the scope of the purpose of the quote, is disclosed as a quote, and the source is specified (Art. 25 para. 2 CopA).
If the image is a copyright-protected work (and that is generally the case), then it may only be used with the consent of the author and the owner of rights. However, the image can be entered into the presentation as a ‘pictorial quotation’. Then it has to serve an explanatory, informational or illustrative function, be covered in the scope of the purpose of the quote, be disclosed as a quote and the source specified (Art. 25 para. 2 CopA).
No, only published works may be quoted. However, in individual cases, the justification of the protection of legitimate interests may exist so that the quotation of unpublished works can also be justified. For example, public interest in a dispute with historical facts is ranked more highly than the interest of the author not to publish his work. (c.f. BVerfG, decision dated 17.12.1999 – 1 BvR 1611/99 in ZUM 2000, 316 in this regard).
No, if the source is not given, this is considered to be (auto-)plagiarism. In accordance with good scientific practice, you are not permitted to copy from yourself without disclosing that you have done so.