You do not need permission to make an abstract or summary of a book or article unless the abstract or summary reproduces a “substantial part” of the way the information is expressed in the source work.

An example from US law concerned a half page, 300-word synopsis of a three act, forty-six page opera. The publisher of the opera unsuccessfully sued the publisher of the synopsis. The court held that the synopsis did “not use the author’s language ... [but gave] just enough information to put the reader on inquiry, precisely as … the review of a book or the description of a painting induces the reader to examine further”. The court in that case contrasted an abstract with an abridgment, which it described as a “colourable shortening of the original text”, indicating that people are more likely to need permission to make an abridged version of a work.

An example of an abridgment which infringed copyright is found in an early Australian case. In that case, the publishers of the Gippsland Mercury summarised news items from the Reuter’s news telegrams published in the Argus newspaper. The court held that the Mercury had made a “copy, colourable alteration or adaptation” that should be prevented.

The uncertainty in this area lies in predicting whether the amount of the source work taken amounts to an important, distinctive or essential part. This will be a question of fact and degree in each case. As a rule of thumb, you are unlikely to need permission if you just briefly outline the main points and arguments in a book or article.