User talk:Dtzuk1

Welcome!

Hello, Dtzuk1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! GRuban (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dtzuk1, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I see you have been here for a while, but were not properly welcomed. So, welcome!

However, I see almost your first contribution in several years is to remove this image from the Talia Zucker article, with the comment: (removed invalid photograph that breached copyright).

Why do you think so? I mean, I can see some objections; she's wearing noticeable movie makeup of a scar and recently healed bruises, so presumably it's not as representative as some might be. But I am fairly certain it doesn't breach copyright - it's a still from a short film that was put up on Vimeo by its producer, Dan Wood, and marked Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0. The point of such a marking is specifically to allow reuse. So why do you think this is a breach of copyright? --GRuban (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRuban,

I thought it was a breach of Copyright as I was under the impression Creative Common pertained only to music and audio, not images and videos.

In any case, I do think this the image is highly unrepresentative of the actress TALIA ZUCKER as she clearly has movie make up on (a bruised eye, cut on her lip and cuts on her face). I also think it is unfair to have this picture represent the actress as it is a screen shot taken directly from a short film in which she is portraying a character and not herself. Can you kindly remove the image?

Thanks for responding; I took the liberty of indenting your response. No, any media may be CC licensed. As I wrote above, I agree that we would prefer a less made-up image, but it is a lot better than nothing. She is, after all, an actress, so wearing makeup is a fair part of what she does. So it is a lot better than nothing. Until we have a better one, I am against deleting it. If you still don't agree, we can ask other editors for their opinions, in a Wikipedia:Request for comments on the article talk page. --GRuban ([[User

talk:GRuban|talk]]) 14:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually have a more suitable photo of the actress that is not a misrepresentation of how she looks. How can I upload it?

The key point is that the image be released under a license that makes it editable and reusable by anyone. (Like the rest of Wikipedia is.) The most common licenses for that are Creative Commons Attribution and Attribution Share-Alike (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) though there are others, such as just "public domain". In order to release an image like that, you need to own the rights to it, the easiest way to do that is by being the photographer. If you are the photographer, then you go to the Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard and it will walk you through the steps of uploading the image, and end with an example of using it on a Wikipedia page. If you aren't the photographer, then you still upload the image there, but you need to make the photographer write an email to Wikimedia Commons OTRS as described in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder that identifies the image, explains that they are the photographer for it and does license the image that way. You should also do this if you are the rights owner some other way (for example if you specifically hired the photographer to produce this image for you, and your contract included you owning the rights). If you are the rights owner, but it is likely this will be questioned, for example if it's a posed or professional quality photo, you should probably write the OTRS email anyway, to explain. If you need more help, please ask here, or send me an email via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/GRuban I would be happy to help. Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(That was the problem with the image you uploaded; we can't just grab random photos from the Internet, we need to use free licensed ones.) --GRuban (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. Thank you for outlining this and for the very informative and considered response. I will go ahead with the most suitable option. Thanks again!

(Again indented. You should sign and date your comments with ~~~~.) So ... any prognosis on when you'll have that image? Because I'd be glad to have a better one, but if there isn't a better one soon, I would like to restore this one for the meanwhile. --GRuban (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a photo I have the rights to and will upload it following the info you provided. It will be uploaded within the next day. Thanks for your help --Dtzuk1, 5 August 2016

Any progress? As above, I am quite tempted to put the other picture back until there is some. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have uploaded a photo and sent an email to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and am yet to hear back. I am the copyright holder of the photograph I would like to upload. I will follow up with them, thanks! --Dtzuk1, 12 August 2016

OK, so here's what I'll do. I'll put the makeup-scar picture in the article, but not at the top in the infobox, but lower down (in the Filmography section seems most appropriate, since it's a role). When you get permissions-commons approval, put your picture at the top in the infobox, then it will have two. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I actually feel the photo you want to upload is rather unfair to the actress (who I happen to know personally and have worked with on a project) as it is incredibly unflattering. I'm sure you can sympathise GRuban that it is hard enough for actresses starting out in the industry and we wouldn't want her to lose roles over a bad photo on her wikipedia page (casting agents frequently use wikipedia when researching actors for jobs). I have spoken with Talia and she would appreciate if we did not upload the photo from the Django Unchained clip as it is highly unrepresentative of how she looks. She appreciates that you are so invested in her page but would prefer to only display the photo I have the copyright rights to. I feel this is reasonable. Can we respect her wishes and refrain from doing so? Many thanks --Dtzuk1, 18:42, 14 August 2016|thumb|Australian actress Talia Zucker ]]

Reasonable; I certainly don't want to annoy her needlessly. If the image you have fulfills the functions of this one - namely, to visually identify her, which, I hope you will agree, is rather important for a film actress - I will be OK removing this one. Do you want to do this? Upload your image to Wikimedia Commons. (You can use the Upload Wizard.) There will be a space for "more information" - in there, put {{subst:OP}}, and, if you have an OTRS ticket number (you will usually get one as an automated reply to your email), put that there as well. Then put the image on the article. It won't be removed without your at least getting a reply from OTRS. (And I'll ask someone with OTRS access to take a look at the ticket.) Then, with a better image on the article, I'll be fine removing the makeup scar image. --GRuban (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRuban, thank you very much for your understanding with this. We do appreciate it. I would very much like replace the Django Unchained screenshot (and I do agree it's important for a film actress to have a visibly recognisable image on their Wikipedia page). I have gone ahead and followed your instructions with my image... Hopefully everything is in order. Many thanks again --Dtzuk1, 22:29, 18 August 2016

Thank you, that is a better photo! --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRuban, thanks you for your assistance with this in the past; I am upset to see that the photo I requested to be removed is visible again. Talia attended a casting recently and the casting agent referenced the photo in the meeting - asking her why she had such an unflattering photo on Wikipedia. Talia was very upset to see that this photo was on her Wikipedia page again. I am asking on behalf of Talia to please take down the picture for the same reasons we discussed before. It is very frustrating for her and is costing her to miss out on potential roles! Many thanks. Dtzuk1 (talk), 19:58, 10 November 2017

Image removed?

I see the image you put up on Commons and the article was deleted. Why? Were you not able to verify identity? Is there anything I can do to help? --GRuban (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRuban, thanks you for your assistance with this in the past; I am upset to see that the photo I requested to be removed is visible again. Talia attended a casting recently and the casting agent referenced the photo in the meeting - asking her why she had such an unflattering photo on Wikipedia. Talia was very upset to see that this photo was on her Wikipedia page again. I am asking on behalf of Talia to please take down the picture for the same reasons we discussed before. It is very frustrating for her and is costing her to miss out on potential roles! Many thanks. Dtzuk1 (talk), 19:58, 10 November 2017

It's on Wikipedia because it's the only freely licensed photo we can find. What happened to the photo that you submitted to Commons? Weren't you able to verify you were the photographer when the Commons folks emailed you? It really shouldn't be this hard; just snap a digital photo, and send it in an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org accompanied by a statement like: "Hi, my name is Jane Doe, I'm Talia Zucker's best friend's hairdresser's third cousin, and I took this photo of Talia Zucker on December 1, 2017 in Melbourne, and am releasing it under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" (if you are Talia Zucker, just look into a mirror holding a smartphone, take a "selfie", say as much). You'll get a response back with a number in it. Then put the photo here or upload it to Wikimedia Commons with an {{subst:OP}} tag referencing the number, and when the permissions-commons folks email you, write back. It's a bit of a nuisance, but it shouldn't be this hard; you've been wrestling with this for over a year now. If you enable email on your account here, then I'll be able to email you, or you can click the Email User link on my user page and I'll be able to help more, you'll be able to send me a copy of your correspondence with permissions-commons (OTRS). --GRuban (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After consideration, I'll take it off, and won't restore it. Holiday season and all. I don't know what happened with OTRS, but I'm guessing it's probably because you haven't proven that you have the rights to the image you uploaded. If you are a representative of Zucker, it really should not be that hard for you to take an image of her and release it. You must see her regularly, right? But despite all that, I'm going to go by your year long dedication to the issue, believe you, and remove it. Someone else may put it back, however, so I really, strongly, urge you to prove you are who you say you are, and replace it with an actual good one. --GRuban (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]