I am setting up a website with a friend about a subject that is close to both of our hearts, related to childhood abuse and neglect. There is a child psychiatrist with whom we have both done courses in the past who has evolved an overview of the subject containing brilliant insights that are not to be found anywhere else. He also has a very difficult, ego-driven side and has had many fallings out with people that I know of in the past because of his desire to control his work and not let anyone adapt it, etc. As a person, he can be wonderfully compassionate and human - and also rude, pig-headed and rather obnoxious. He seems to take himself as god, somewhat. Anyway, aware of the seminal importance of his work for our subject, months ago now I told him, as a courtesy, that we wanted to write an article giving an overview of his work for our website. He replied saying that he preferred to do this himself, as people got his ideas wrong, etc. Anyway, this promised article did not come, did not come and I had to remind him about half a dozen times before he finally sent something (we are going live with the website next week...). And what he did send was rambling, very incomplete and had obviously been rushed off, as well as containing some very controversial, odd statements that I just don't want to use on the site or put my name to as it were. I edited the article and wrote to him, very diplomatically of course, saying that I would like his permission to use the edited version and to complete it with quotations from his books. He wrote back rudely, having a hissy fit basically, saying this was ridiculous, I was engaging in machinations and that I use all of his article or none at all!! I work in publishing and editing is absolutely standard - all the time my translations are edited, and although I always have the right to disagree with them, I almost always see that the edits are improvements and accept them. My question is this... I now want to write a brief overview, in my own words, of his work, acknowledging him as the source. Is there anything he can do about that if he decided to make trouble? I am probably being a bit paranoid but he really is the sort of character who could try to sue us, crazy as it is, for defamation of his ideas or something like that... Does anyone know about intellectual property as regards the net?