When a document is conceived in a company, its creator defines the linked rules of reproduction related to the issued document. These rules can be more or less restraining. The definition of the constraints can be elaborated according to various parameters such as the identification of the person that asks for a duplication or any other parameters such as request's date. Established rules can generate various actions when a reproduction request concerns a protected document. So, if the document is the subjected to strict protection, the original can be captured at the reproduction machine when its reproduction is requested. An alarm can also be activated either from the place of the illicit request or from a checking point.

Other, less repressive actions can also be defined. For instance, the copy can be allowed but with addition of specific mentions such as "duplicate" or even with deletion of sensitive zones (signature, amounts, and telephone numbers…). The copy can also have the mention " Copy to the attention of Mr. Brown on the date of 2004/10/10, if Mr. Brown is the person who asked for the copy and 2004/10/10 the date of copy. This has in that case a dissuasive effect if Mr. Brown had the intention to take the copy out of the company and also makes him aware of his responsibilities. Indeed Mr. Brown may be a trustful employee but he may not necessarily take the needed safety measures on his own. Amid standardized copies, he can leave them by mistake at the disposition of less scrupulous persons.
The copy that Mr. Brown possesses holds his name, besides the delivery of the copy can be memorized on the security system of the company. One can assume that Mr. Brown will assure that his personal and nominative copy is not used unknowingly to bad ends, otherwise he would be responsible. On the one hand company regulations and traceability over copying imply that a dishonest employee must, if he wants to export some company's secrets, take out originals and not copies. It requires a professionalism and cold blood that the big majority of today company looters do not have. On the other hand, even the temporary disappearance of the original is detectable and increases the looter's risk extensively.