I believe that all the arguments put forward are valid. However, there is one point that seems to have been forgotten: precedent. If the IPC lets Earl Moon reproduce parts of documents without PRIOR permission and without a POST-challenge, then a legal precedent has been set. I could then reproduce every IPC document under my own name, sell them and make a hefty profit (by undercutting the IPC). When it came to court, my lawyer would then quote the precedent and argue that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I can therefore understand Dave's message. In my experience, the IPC is not a wicked money-grubber and I feel sure that if they had been asked beforehand for this diagram or that graph to be reproduced, they would have said yes, on condition that acknowledgement of the source was made. Something like "(C) IPC 199x from IPC-A-600, reproduced with permission", in small letters under the figure, should do the trick. Moonman has placed himself in an unenviable situation, by infringing a declared copyright for publication. The elegant way out of this situation would be for him to eat humble pie and ask the IPC for an a posteriori permission, explaining that it was done in innocence. If they grant it, with or without conditions, well and good: in this case, acknowledgement would be courteous, even if not imposed. If they don't, then Earl will have no choice but to withdraw the litigious material. Also, it is not permissible to simply copy a graph, so that it looks different: the data behind the graph is also copyright. However, I respectfully suggest that Earl checks through his work to make sure that he has not incorporated any other copyrighted material (text or diagrams) by accident, because a multiple suit against him will be quite costly. It should never be forgotten that it is not a legal requirement to declare any publication is copyright, although it is wise to do so. Strictly speaking, even this e-mail is copyright, though this would never be enforced. I respectfully suggest we all cool down now, stop the vituperations, either pro or con, and let Earl and the IPC discuss and, hopefully, agree on terms without any third parties making life difficult for either party by morally pressuring them. Brian A question has been raised about references: it is perfectly permissible to quote a reference, giving the author, title of a copyrighted work, date etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------