I'd like to clarify the issue of copyrights with an excerpt from an email I just sent LJK:

Copyrights cover a particular expression of an idea, that is, one instance of a creative work. A person might express the same thought different ways, but each expression is considered a unique copyrightable work in its own right. The point, in this case, is that even though Cowing was quoting somebody, his article which records those words is considered a copyrightable work. If there'd been another reporter present at the interview, his article would be considered another copyrightable work, even if it simply reproduced the same words.

The way to get around it is to act like a journalist yourself. You might say, "Shuttle Program Manager Bill Parsons, in an interview with Keith Cowing's SpaceRef, today said..." (and just a short excerpt; the entire thing blew past "fair use"). That way you acknowledge the source of the material--I think Keith's big concern was that he didn't get credit, and it might've seemed as if you had interviewed Parsons.

I should also note that the entire page on which the quote is reproduced is copyrighted, so taking only the guts of the article, even if they consist only of a third party's words, doesn't negate the copyright. What is copyrighted is Keith's recording of those words. If there had been another reporter present, what if his/her transcription was slightly different? A word dropped or misheard, some trivial error in transcription from tape, etc. You can see that the transcription exists apart from the original spoken words; it's a unique "creative" endeavor in its own right.

BTW, the possibility of transcription errors is why it's never safe to take a quote and present it without attribution. You might just copy a transcription with a unique error, one that would identify your source just as surely as a fingerprint. You should know, too, that mapmakers routinely put in nonexistent streets for the same reason: The error uniquely identifies the map as theirs, in the event that it's copied. There are a lot more "Easy Street"s on maps than exist in the real world.

Keith was on solid legal ground with his complaint, so there's no point protesting it.