1
\$\begingroup\$

@DaveTweed recently deleted my Answer

  • These images have no personal author and the legal copyright details in the datasheet do not prohibit copying for educational purposes.

  • No Intellectual Property was being stolen. After all, they want you to advertise their products. But I did not need any specific reference as it was irrelevant to the question.

Even I recall @Kortuk once said "more attributions to datasheet images would be NICE TO HAVE" meaning not necessary according to the rules of attributions" Although his name is not searchable is not searchable to find this comment for some reason. I am paraphrasing and he did not capitalize.

Since my answer does not infringe on Intellectual Property usage and is not restricted in the legalese for copying for educational purposes, I assert your actions and the assumptions that any image without a citation or attribution is illegal or even in bad taste.

It is far different from copying a personal graph in Wikipedia which has a requirement for attribution.

This is a commercial part and sharing information does not violate their copyrights or Intellectual Property.

In my opinion, this is action ignoring the fact that it is a commercial document free to the public to share as they see fit for educational/non-profit purposes and Dave was ignorantly applying 1 rule for all images.

Furthermore, I resent @ElliotAlderson 's accusation I was stealing anything, when the burden of proof is his and there is none since it is not "personal" nor assuming I have any IP rights.

Maybe the rules need updating or Dave needs to be more consistent with his actions to everyone for every image on this site.

This is not personal, rather a commercial datasheet for non-profit educational use. Or is someone profiting from my answers that I dont know about?

Gate and routing delays as a function of voltage and temperature

\$\endgroup\$
8
\$\begingroup\$

Citation and Copyright are two different issues, and you're confusing them. Just because you are not impinging on Copyright, either because there is no valid copyright or through Fair Use, has nothing to do with the requirement for citation.

We cite to make it clear where the work is coming from, not because it makes it align with requirements under copyright.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ When it is clear that it comes from say an ST datasheet and the document has no description or follow-on or relevant info to ASICs for PTC thermal behaviour, your assumptions are incorrect making the argument fallacious. -1 When I stated they were google images and I tossed them from hundreds of similar ones, none of which were more relevant than the other, it would take me far longer to find the exact same ones go to the site, find the datasheet link than anyone to see for themselves, yah the datasheet is not relevant but the characteristic is common. \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 19 '18 at 14:46
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @TonyEErocketscientist I sit on a board of academic honesty. I participate in hearings involving proper attribution of sources all the time. I have training in such matters. I don't hold web forums to nearly the same standards, but I do know what I'm talking about. This is silly. Put a line in your answer saying where the figures came from, and then request that the mods undelete the answer. Your answer will be better, and will satisfy those (properly) asking for attribution. FWIW, it is NOT clear to those who need the info the most that this comes from a datasheet. \$\endgroup\$ – Scott Seidman Sep 19 '18 at 14:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ The question was not relevant to any specfic FET. Most FETs have this behaviour maybe he could read a book to find out why or just accept this is why ASIC have this characteristic of speed vs timing. \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 19 '18 at 14:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ I resent @ElliotAlderson 's accusation I was stealing anything and you drawing attention to this by deleting it. \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 19 '18 at 14:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @TonyEErocketscientist, yes, your answer clearly has value, and if you attribute your figures, people will see it and get that value. \$\endgroup\$ – Scott Seidman Sep 19 '18 at 14:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ I understand the value of attribution and use them often, in this case, it has less added value than the google image search for the same keywords I used. \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 19 '18 at 14:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ Then, by all means, flag the comment you're finding offensive. I didn't delete you're answer, I'm responding to your question. \$\endgroup\$ – Scott Seidman Sep 19 '18 at 14:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ I did and Dave did as I stated in 1st line and he is not supportive and only deflects the issue with bias. Scott I value your opinions. \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 19 '18 at 14:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ FYI this was my reply to the request for attribution after my explanation google.com/… \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 19 '18 at 15:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you argument is true and mine is true, then Dave Tweed has alot of answers and questions with images that have no citations to avoid bias towards me. and Elliot should apologize for rudely accusing me of "Stealing" when I was not. \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 19 '18 at 19:24
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ You were accused of plagiarism, of which you continue to admit that's exactly what you did. You were never addressed rudely by Elliot in this post. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Sep 19 '18 at 22:08
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @TonyEErocketscientist I opened your link to Google Image Search, and now I'm lost since I don't know which site you took the image from. That's certainly not a proper citation. What's the difficulty of mentioning the source of the image? How can the community be sure that the image you took is the correct one, not the manipulated one from shady websites? \$\endgroup\$ – Andrew T. Sep 20 '18 at 7:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ The fallacy in your argument @ScottSeidman is the references were not necessary "We cite to make it clear" All CMOS logic families and ASIC's have the same PTC characteristic as all the examples of FETS that have the advantage of showing this graph and illustrating that answer of mine. It was a pedantic request and a redirection from me to say it was irrelevant and teaching person how to fish for more image examples with no contradiction. But I understand your logic and am not confused as you said. It was an inclusive example, not exclusive. Your premises are false. \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 21 '18 at 1:35
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Tony That is the standard that I am held to in my work. If you use data or ideas from a source, you cite it. I have cited datasheets (with no specific person as an author) in my published work, and I would have been punished for ethical and legal violations - regardless of my intent, regardless of how "harmful" it actually was. If you're going to continue to argue that what you did wasn't plagiarism, I'm concluding that this discussion has hit a dead end, and that you are guilty of blatant and unrepentant plagiarism. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Sep 22 '18 at 1:18
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It does not pass the criteria test, where you have repeatedly ignored my points instead of commenting on them, is it stubbornness or ignorance ? Is this held to the same standard as a publication? Not. Do others get the same biased derogatory treatment for incited datasheet extracts. No . Is this bias targeted inflammatory response from admins? Yes \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 22 '18 at 1:20
6
\$\begingroup\$

The rule here is that you must cite your sources. Among other things, it allows a reader to dig deeper for details you might have left out.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ There are no more details in any of the datasheets about FET thermal resistance characteristics other than the graphs. For that you have to find a textbook. It was a simple explanation of complex FET chips (ASIC's) from discrete characteristics in commercial FETs. Your bias is noted. -1 \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 19 '18 at 14:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ Dave Question can you "cite the name of the original author" If not then this rule does not apply if the legalese does not prohibit copies like books do. \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 19 '18 at 14:36
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ If you put as much effort into adding the citations as you are arguing about it, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Your choice... \$\endgroup\$ – Dave Tweed Sep 19 '18 at 14:40
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I said I tossed the Google images links. Get over it and stop being biased and inconsistent about this "rule" and denying I am correct that this does not apply. \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 19 '18 at 14:42
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ If you would like to prove your point above, find my datasheet images on Google and see how long it takes. Next ok, but this time does not warrant deleting an answer or make it any better to include them. \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 19 '18 at 15:00
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Tony Google image links aren't actual references - you need to cite the page the image came from. Just linking to search results is a very temporary fix as the search results change over time. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Sep 19 '18 at 15:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ I did not do that in my answer just the comment, so I understand your point. But my point is the CMOS behaviour has not change since they were invented and unlikely to change with smaller lithography unless some other chemistry is used like Si-Ge-Ind-Ph . All CMOS has a PTC and ALL CMOS reduces max transition frequency with rising temperature. So a general quick look at all discrete datasheet curves was just to sho my point. I could have done better to examine the physics why, but tried to keep it simple. @W5VO TY My other point is there is no added value to a citation. \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 19 '18 at 15:54
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ My graphs are obviously not plagiarism., nor do they have author names, so how does your justification for deleting it apply? Will we expect you to do this for every answer in this forum with an image to show your "fair play"? \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 19 '18 at 19:31
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Tony Unreferenced graphs are plagiarism. In fact, they are obviously plagiarized because it is clear that someone else made them and we don't know who that is. If it came from a datasheet, then you reference the datasheet. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Sep 19 '18 at 21:53
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @Tony Regarding this being evenly applied, you're right. This gets brought to moderator attention via flags, and so that's (generally) how we respond. I would be really happy if proper attribution was paid on all images and data sets. If an author of a post is unwilling to add proper attribution, then I think deletion is probably the only tool we (mods) have left. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Sep 19 '18 at 22:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ If that were the case, I would have followed suit. \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 20 '18 at 0:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ But nor is it a person was it a simple task to find the same exact image references from datasheets, when my point was clear, It is irrelevant and then he was insulting.. But I guess this is what to expect frome users on this site.along with lack of professionalism from lack of support from some admins. \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 20 '18 at 1:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ Even Kortuk said this ...electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/705/… But then @DaveTweed is not being nice \$\endgroup\$ – Sunnyskyguy EE75 Sep 20 '18 at 5:47
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Tony You were asked nicely to add attribution. You refused, so a moderator was forced to intervene. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Sep 20 '18 at 14:53
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Tony Your response makes me think that you still don't understand what plagiarism means. Wikipedia has a good definition of plagiarism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism . Google is not a source, it is a tool for finding sources. Our citation requirements are tame by comparison to a research paper - IEEE requirements for attribution are the standard that I am regularly held to. Your excuse is interesting, but not valid for avoiding attribution. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Sep 20 '18 at 16:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .