F. Copyright 1. Material published online is protected by the same laws that apply to books, videos and music. 2. The copyright in a member’s posts remains with the original author. By posting to sciforums, you give us permission to publish your posts anywhere on the site. 3. It is illegal to copy or republish material from sciforums (or elsewhere on the internet) without the express permission of the copyright owner. 4. Under the laws of many countries, limited quotation of material is permissible in the context of comment, review and/or criticism. This does not in general permit the reproduction in full of complete works (e.g. song lyrics or news articles). 5. Where you reproduce part of a work in a post, you must include a link to the original source, along with appropriate acknowledgement – at a minimum the author’s name and the name of the original publishing source, but consider also supplying the original date of publication and other relevant information (e.g. ‘US shares fall further’ by A.Writer, New York Times, 11 September 2015.) ............................................................................................... You know, after a while other peoples behaviour rubs off on you. You watch other members make posts on equations, textbook stuff no less, whether in part or whole. Some examples: Relativity is good start. Let's be honest, relastivity as famous as it is is written by such a wide sprectrum of scientists. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2837902#post2837902 I suppose it does not matter how famous an equation is. If you don't cite your equations, it's definate copyright and plaigarism right? Here is loads more http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2834687#post2834687 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=105796 The latter one here is an interesting case. You have a case where either the equation as a whole is identified, or it can be seen that certain threads might use an equation and describe parts, as was mine. Mine is here I never actually saw captaincremins later post till yesterday when it was too late to reply ''@Mister I don't understand these equations, but doing a quick google on them I have found some of them quoted as the work of "a leading scientist in his area of research, Tsao Chang", and using virtually exactly the same phrases. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/6...irac-equation/'' Well, the answer is ''no'', it is not my work. Ironically, the link is my own work. The beginning briefly covers the (Higgs Mechanism which I admit is not my work, but not done by Tsao anyhow), and the latter part describes some langrangians, which is my work. I can also notice mistakes in there! lol But that was my work he linked to, and the work was demonstrated rewriting langrangians in terms of the Tsao Proper Mass. Anyway, some more posts where people demonstrate the use of equations and never cites them If my plaigarism is true then Rpenner is found guilty of massive amounts of it http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2813367#post2813367 I mean there is simply loads of math in there, no doubt none of it was technically worked out! I have never passed off work that I have presented as my own, unless it really is my own work. I am not a pleigerist. I use equations in here to answer questions just like everyone has in the past. So how is my case any different than what has been seen at this site? I make one reply to cptbork using some standard equations which describe the Higgs Phenom using Goldstone Bosons, and my post is subjected to that crap behaviour you see off alphanumeric. I asked james in a PM to have a look, and he said read the site rules, otherwise you are wasting my time... well i KNOW the site the rules. And if I broke them yesterday, well wake-up call, they have been broken hundreds of time by various members.