Talk:Erythrophobia

Erythrophobia - possible copyvio. Couldn't find exact original source, but appears to have been published in a periodical. -- Wapcaplet 16:03 30 May 2003 (UTC)
- Lots of Wikipedia contributors publish stuff in periodicals. The copyright is owned by a guy from Westfaelische Wilhelms - Universitaet. The article was submitted from an IP at that university. Please avoid copyright paranoia. -- Tim Starling 00:19 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hack and slash, I know, but there was some fantastic info on blushing here, which I stole! :) Martin

The author of this article, Dr. Alexander Gerlach, has confirmed that this article is licensed under GFDL in an email to me:

Dear Mr. Starling,

I have submitted the article myself. However, I actually do not have the copyright for it any more (with publication in healthline). However, I now have added a number of paragraphs and the article is somewhat changed. I therefore assume that I do have the copyright of this "new" article and am willing to license it under GFDL.
Best regards,

Alexander

-- Tim Starling 00:03 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well done for checking that! Unfortunately, even though Dr. Gerlach did add a lot to the article a while after he started it, adding material doesn't affect the copyright status of what was already there! And furthermore, the new material was all moved off into blushing by Mr. Dice, together with some of the material that was in the first version of this article, so now we are left with only the Healthline copyrighted material in this article (apart from the opening line by Wapcaplet!), and part of the Healthline copyrighted material in blushing, too. Oh, woe is us... So we still have to remove it all, don't we? -- Oliver P. 00:24 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

*sigh* Yes, I guess so. Damn magazines. I look forward to the day when arXiv.org takes over the world :) -- Tim Starling 00:54 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the copyrighted material. It looks a bit bare now, doesn't it? And now the question remains about the second large portion of text that Dr. Gerlach added, and which is now at blushing. It seems that from his e-mail quoted above, he's not too clear on copyright laws, so maybe we should check that, too... Should we question him again? -- Oliver P. 01:14 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

He seems pretty clear that there are no copyright issues with the remaining text. Who else could possibly have a claim to that text? Unless he was paid by someone to write it, or he obtained permission from Healthline to submit the modified version to another periodical... I think he would have told us in either of those cases. I say keep it. -- Tim Starling 02:01 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What we probably should do is get a copy of the (copyrighted) Heathline original, compare it with what was posted here, and remove anything that is too close. That's in an ideal world in which we all have lots of time and journals are free... ;-) Martin

I've added this page to Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary, in case any one cares...or can possibly write a new version, free of copyvio headaches, of course! But I really can't imagine how this could become a healthy, fleshed-out article now. -- Paige 16:57, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

A perpetual license

IANAL. The GFDL is a perpetual license grant! So, if the author subsequently tried to publish it in Healthline, and agreed to give Healthline an exclusive license to the content, then the author has lied to Healthline, because he can't give them that exclusive license. All of which means that we can continue to use the material with impunity, and if Healthline has a problem with that, they can sue the author, not us. Martin 19:43, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Martin, while I respect the spirit of that statement very much, the onus lies with the user of a protected work to ensure they have the right to use it. So whose lawyer is going to explain that to Healthline in the first place? I think it's tricky. Paige 20:23, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Aha! Publication date: Gerlach, A.L. (1997). Blushing: When a Common Reaction Becomes a Problem. Healthline, 16(4) [1]. That predates us, which mean that Healthline may well have the exclusive copyright, so Alexander can't now license it under the GFDL.

I'd got the wrong impression from Alex's email. Dang! Martin 20:45, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)