That I think would be fraudulent misrepresentation of who owns the content in question. In practice nobody would do that a thousand times and if they did it wou

That I think would be fraudulent misrepresentation of who owns the content in question. In practice nobody would do that a thousand times and if they did it would still not be "copying". They would have had to pay for all the "copies" of the paper from which they cut off the article. They would have paid for all those "copies" and thus they would have the right to distribute them (unless a private contract prohibited that). Misrepresenting the origin of the content could be considered fraud. But if you never implied that you created that content then maybe not.