Well, I'm no lawyer, but it seems extremely odd to me that words written over 200 years ago can be under copyright to anyone. It makes sense that OUP could copyright the typesetting, cover and overall design (so large scale photoreproduction falls under the law), as well as any editorial notes inserted into the Glasgow edition. But SMITH'S words? Perhaps someone can explain the legal basis behind that. It seems to me that in quoting Smith's word's, Tony has violated no copyright, since the copyright on the words must have expired some time in the late 18th or early 19th century. And in citing the Glasgow edition he has only informed readers where they might conveniently find those words; unless the page numbers themselves fall under copyright, that too would not violate any copyright law. Is there a lawyer in the house?
 
Gary Mongiovi