Template:Did you know nominations/Suzie Zuzek
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Evrik (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Suzie Zuzek
Lilly Pulitzer dresses in Suzie Zuzek prints, c.1965
- ... that Suzie Zuzek's impactful 1960s and 1970s textile designs for Lilly Pulitzer dresses (illustrated) were recovered from under floorboards? Source: "Those prints that made the brand as instantly recognizable as Pucci’s abstract swirls or Burberry’s black and tan plaid were painted almost entirely by one woman in Key West, an artist named Suzie Zuzek who died in 2011. Her archive was presumed lost, thrown away when the original Lilly Pulitzer company filed for bankruptcy in 1984, until it was unearthed in the sub-flooring of a warehouse a few years ago." [1]
- ALT1: ... that Lilly Pulitzer called Suzie Zuzek's textile designs "shit" before using them almost exclusively in her widely recognized dresses (illustrated)? Source: "Zuzek and Pulitzer first crossed paths in 1962, when Pulitzer flew down to Key West, marched barefoot into the print shop, and, according to one source interviewed by Brown, dumped a Gristedes bag full of fabric on the counter and asked “Is this your shit?” Pulitzer ordered three hundred yards on the spot. Upon returning to Palm Beach, she called to increase her order to three thousand. Four years later, she was going through more than five thousand yards every week, with most of the designs custom-made by Zuzek." [2]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Wrath Month
- Comment: There's a lot of fun possible hooks here - I obviously don't expect the second hook to pass due to language, but it was too tempting not to suggest and is definitely catchy and attention grabbing. The image I think will look exceptionally beautiful and eye-catching on the front page, and there are other possible images on Commons of the same 2 dresses.
Created by Mabalu (talk). Self-nominated at 19:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC).
- Nice article! New, long & neutral enuf; well-written. On the other side of the Atlantic I'd never heard of either of them. I think the copyright status of the image for MP needs checking by a specialist - might not work, which would be a pity. First hook fine. ALT1 would be fine if "called" is changed to "referred to", as LP obviously didn't think there were shit. Earwig picks up "Lilly Pulitzer flew down to Key West" from your source, which you might tweak, but nothing else. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
for first hook, maybe ALT1 after tweak. Pic needs checking for copyright. Johnbod (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think the RISD Museum website is very clear and explicit - "The images on this website can enable discovery and collaboration and support new scholarship, and we encourage their use. This object is in the public domain (CC0 1.0). This object is Dress with the accession number of 1990.027," and they do not have that on every single database entry. I have only uploaded images that have that explicit note on their database entry. I asked about another museum database a number of years ago that had some very similar wording on it and images that had the wording on their webpage were OK, so I'm pretty sure the pic is fine. Mabalu (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd also note that the RISD only uploaded/released the low-res images, you have to contact them directly to request publication-worthy or higher resolution images, so I think the message is clear - you can freely use the low-res images they made available, but have to ask/request permission for the good quality stuff. Mabalu (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- (ec) Well, maybe, but presumably the copyright on the design (of both textiles and dresses) belonged to the now-bankrupt LP company. Museum copyright claims or lack of them are very often unreliable, in both directions. Just owning a dress doesn't give you the copyright. The lo res/hi res is about the copyright in their photo not the dresses, if its about anything other than money. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Clothing, under American copyright law, is considered a functional object and no matter how elaborate, it is generally considered non-copyrightable - especially if it is made in multiples, which Pulitzer dresses were in their hundreds. This included garments that have printed or patterned surfaces and designs on them - otherwise a lot of people would be in HUGE trouble for being photographed wearing prints and patterns, or for having designer curtains in their Christmas photos. It would be considered de minimis. What would be a problem would be a photograph of the actual textile design/painting/drawing, and I think a flat 2D photograph of the textile (not distorted by folds or being on a figure) might be problematic. There have been *many* discussions along these lines over the years on Commons, and as a fashion historian/specialist, I am pretty positive there is no issue here. Mabalu (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Really? I doubt lawyers for Gucci, Chanel etc would agree with you there. Obviously, especially as the company went bust years ago, there is no danger of any comeback, but that is not the way WP works in this area, above all for Main page. Fair use would be the best get-out I imagine; I don't believe being functional or multiple helps at all, & I've sat in a good few intellectual property lawyers' office in my time. As I said, a specialist should check it. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- A specialist like this one.... too specialised and authoritive? Wikimedia is known for not agreeing with well paid lawyers. We go with the law, judges and specialists. Unsubstantiated doubt is always available - we need a specialist authoritive source and ... we have one. risdmuseum.org say they own the rights, they understand this subject area (and they will have sat on 100s of meetings about this subject). We do not have the authority to second guess them with a minority opinion. Are we waiting for a 100% rock solid assurance from a specialist lawyer? (as if!) Or going with the subject experts? Or some possible but undefined doubt - because the latter is an option for everything we do. We could get a bit of publicity out of "Wikipedia decide to delete all of its images of people wearing clothes but decide to keep all the naked ones" Victuallers (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Generally we do agree with the lawyers, whether well-paid or not, including WMF's own. And judges are lawyers too. We/Commons don't accept vast numbers of assertions of copyright by museums (especially in the UK), and have on occasion quietly deleted numbers of images uploaded by museums and istitutions who later decided they shouldn't have done this. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- A specialist like this one.... too specialised and authoritive? Wikimedia is known for not agreeing with well paid lawyers. We go with the law, judges and specialists. Unsubstantiated doubt is always available - we need a specialist authoritive source and ... we have one. risdmuseum.org say they own the rights, they understand this subject area (and they will have sat on 100s of meetings about this subject). We do not have the authority to second guess them with a minority opinion. Are we waiting for a 100% rock solid assurance from a specialist lawyer? (as if!) Or going with the subject experts? Or some possible but undefined doubt - because the latter is an option for everything we do. We could get a bit of publicity out of "Wikipedia decide to delete all of its images of people wearing clothes but decide to keep all the naked ones" Victuallers (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Really? I doubt lawyers for Gucci, Chanel etc would agree with you there. Obviously, especially as the company went bust years ago, there is no danger of any comeback, but that is not the way WP works in this area, above all for Main page. Fair use would be the best get-out I imagine; I don't believe being functional or multiple helps at all, & I've sat in a good few intellectual property lawyers' office in my time. As I said, a specialist should check it. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Clothing, under American copyright law, is considered a functional object and no matter how elaborate, it is generally considered non-copyrightable - especially if it is made in multiples, which Pulitzer dresses were in their hundreds. This included garments that have printed or patterned surfaces and designs on them - otherwise a lot of people would be in HUGE trouble for being photographed wearing prints and patterns, or for having designer curtains in their Christmas photos. It would be considered de minimis. What would be a problem would be a photograph of the actual textile design/painting/drawing, and I think a flat 2D photograph of the textile (not distorted by folds or being on a figure) might be problematic. There have been *many* discussions along these lines over the years on Commons, and as a fashion historian/specialist, I am pretty positive there is no issue here. Mabalu (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- (ec) Well, maybe, but presumably the copyright on the design (of both textiles and dresses) belonged to the now-bankrupt LP company. Museum copyright claims or lack of them are very often unreliable, in both directions. Just owning a dress doesn't give you the copyright. The lo res/hi res is about the copyright in their photo not the dresses, if its about anything other than money. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)