Michael Snow wrote: I agree that laches in that case was applied to prevent injunctive relief, and that a lot has happened since 1989: notably the spread of the on-line world. Invoking laches before the expiry of the limitation period would not be my choice of a first line of defence. One thing that is certainly not clear is when the limitation clock starts running. In the world of the printed book continuously renewed availability is not an option; time must elapse between one edition and the next. Laches can probably be invoked to prevent the extension of the limitation period beyond three years as long as an unbroken thread can be traced from the original allegedly infringing act to the act that is used as a basis for action. The limitation period can probably be viewed as the time within which the person should have known about the infringement. The copyright owner should have a duty of due dilligence which duty might be satisfied simply enough by periodic Google searches using key phrases in his text. Something like keeping dated records of negative search results might be sufficient to establish lack of knowledge. If there were positive results, and he did nothing about any of them (including ones unrelated to Wikipedia, and our downstream users who have failed to trace their source as required by the GFDL) then invoking laches after the initial three year period would be a possibility. "Doing something" may be as simple as sending an informal request to have the material removed from the offending website. Ec