Is it Misrepresentation of Intellectual Property to change the dialect of the same language?

Question

Say that Bob wrote a paper that consists of the word, "industrialised". This is how the British English word is spelled. Now, say that Jerry wants to quote Bob on his paper. But Jerry speaks American English, and so he spells the word, "industrialized". Jerry changes the word to the American version. Can Bob take legal action (assuming he has full copyright protection), against Jerry for changing the dialect of the same language?

Answer 1

I know of no cause of action related to "misrepresentation of intellectual property" (I believe it may be a phrase used colloquially in the context of academic integrity). If such a cause of action exists, I'll leave it to another answer to discuss. This answer approaches your question through the lens of copyright infringement and moral rights.

A reproduction is an infringement if it substantially reproduces the original. Short quotes, properly attributed, will often be fair use, even if exactly reproduced.

If an exact reproduction is not an infringement (e.g. because it copied too short a phrase) or if it is fair use, then a slightly altered reproduction a fortiori would also not be an infringement or would be fair use.

In jurisdictions that recognize moral rights, there may be circumstances where an alteration, even to spelling, would be a violation of an author's moral rights. But to make out a violation of an author's moral rights based only on a spelling alteration, the spelling would have to be critical to the integrity of the work (e.g. perhaps the choice of dialect) and the alteration would have to be prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation.

Answer 2

If Jerry's misspelling caused harm to Bob (really hard to see how it could), Bob could sue Jerry. The prospects for success are slightly improved if a case can be made that Jerry impugned Bob's Britishness by this act, but only from 0% to 0.1%. You assert that Bob changed the spelling, but this is a question of fact that would have to be proven in court (since probably the publisher changed the spelling).