Talk:Rob De Luca

File:Rob De Luca live photo by Jason Obrotka.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rob De Luca live photo by Jason Obrotka.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rob De Luca live photo by Jason Obrotka.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-free media rationale for Rob De Luca

Article	Rob De Luca
Purpose of use	Usage of an official promotional picture on Wikipedia instead of fan pictures as desired by the record company
Replaceable?	no

Edit war on image

I think we should leave the contentious image out of the article until we reach consensus. It is a BLP and we should be cautious. I see no reason why we can't wait for a better image, we are not in a hurry. If the BLP's looks are very different now, there is no reason to include a 'bad' image if editors are trying to find a better one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So if I am reading this, this, and this correctly, we are removing the picture of Rob De Luca because in the last 3 years he has cut his hair. The concern is that because the free image we have of him shows his longer hair and bands might not hire him because this image shows his longer hair. There is nothing here that is contentious. So is the record company now making the decisions as to what should be in the article or are we as editors doing it? We have a free image that is a fair depiction of him, captioned with the date that it was taken and it is free. I see no reason not to include the image. GB fan 17:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Moral_issues , Dehumanization, Victimisation#Victimisation_in_employment_law etc. We don't need a 'bad' image of him to improve the article. We can include both when we get a new one, we may be legally liable if we continue to include it after a request to remove it on the grounds that it is effecting his career, etc, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The moral issues section of the image use policy talks about three reasons for not using an image of a person. This image does not unfairly demean or ridicule the subject, it is actually a fairly good picture of him doing what he is notable for, playing bass guitar. I see nothing to say that it was unfairly obtained, it was taken at a public event where still photography was probably allowed. Since it was taken at a public event it does not unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life. I have no idea how this image of him playing his bass dehumanizes him in any way, so I do not understand why you linked that. If it does dehumanize him, then any image of any person would dehumanize them. Once again I do not understand why you linked the victimization law. No one is targeting him as a result of bringing a claim for another form of discrimination. This image does not victimize him in any way. Could you please explain how you see any of those three pertaining to this article? This is not a bad image of him it is only 3 years old and portrays him in a good light. We can not be held legally liable for anything if we provide this image in his article. GB fan 20:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"efforts to undermine one's access to basic human rights (e.g., physical autonomy, food, water, opportunities for self-sufficiency)" from Dehumanization and "suffer detriment to their employment conditions" from Victimisation#Victimisation_in_employment_law--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No one is trying to undermine his basic human rights and no where in this discussion has anyone said that he has suffered detriment to his employment conditions. The only thing that was said is that he may not get hired if a potential band see that he had longer hair three years ago. GB fan 21:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This argument is completely absurd.

Displaying a photo of him with longer hair violates his basic human rights? REALLY? Some of my friends on Facebook are going to be hauled off to The Hague for posting photos of me in a prom dress.

Yeah, I suppose he might "suffer detriment to (his) employment conditions". This is also true of every murderer, terrorist, nutbar, etc. we write about when the article covers their murdering, terrorizing and/or, um, nutbarism. Thankfully, "Victimization in employment law" goes on to explain that this involves, "...as a result of bringing a claim for another form of discrimination." So, yeah, if DeLuca brings a claim against us based on a claim of discrimination, he might be "victimized" if that claim is detrimental to his employment conditions. What this has to do with a photo of him with longer hair is less than clear to me. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See: Privacy laws of the United States - "publicizes him or her in a false light"--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

For the image to "publicize him in a false light" there would have to be something false about it. That is what he looked like at the time the photo was taken. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the image, there does not appear to be any contentious material involved here just that the subject/record producer does not like the picture. The other arguments presented do not carry any weight either. GB fan 22:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See: Privacy laws of the United States - "publicizes him or her in a false light"--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That's absurd. By your logic, we should remove the pictures of Betty Grable because she sure didn't look like that in her later years. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The image is fine. It accurately shows the subject as he was three years ago doing what he's notable for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

3RR exemption

7.Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page.

If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoe1967 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 5 July 2012‎

You can try it. I will definitely argue you have no claim to the exemption and recommend that you be blocked if you continue to edit war. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• I still see no consensus. Please stop edit warring like assholes and wait for consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite on-going edits from Canoe1967 (the only editor who seems to see an issue here), I still do not see a response to the question of how a photograph can be libelous, biased or unsourced/poorly sourced. True or false: the photo shows what he looked like 3 years ago. True. Thus it is not, in any way, a "false statement" and, therefore, cannot be libel. Is the photo somehow biased? A google image search shows dozens of similar photos on the first page of results. If anything, the apparent desire to erase the image he projected in the very recent past (based on your claims of personal correspondence with him) seems to be a desire to bias the article. The photo does not make any "unsourced claims": it is simply what he looked like when that photo was taken. I cannot begin to understand how you think this can be a BLP issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

An image may represent a false impression of a person or may represent an undue representation of a person. In any case, the BLP policy is supposed to be taken seriously and any claims of BLP violations are to be discussed first, not edit warred over, with the article taking the most conservative approach while the item is under discussion. -- Avanu (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, at least five editors without any COI, including two admins, found the BLP claims spurious. Do you have more to add to the claim besides what has already been discussed? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, I am not sure if you have seen the rest of the discussion about this image at WT:BLPN#Wiki image policy collides with guidelines for biographies of living persons (or at least with their personal rights). Over the course of these conversations Canoe1967 has been asked multiple times what was contentious about the picture and nothing has been forthcoming. All that we have been able to gather is that De Luca and his record company don't want the picture and that it might hurt his ability to get hired because the Wikipedia article is his CV. The BLP claims have been vague claims about dehumanization, victimization in the workplace and moral issues in the image use policy. Looking at the deleted image that De Luca and his record company want to use, the major differences is his hair is a little past shoulder length versus mid stomach length and he is wearing a jacket in the new picture that covers up his tattoos on his arm. GB fan 19:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I don't see what the big deal is over the image, but the thing is, unless everyone completely agrees, consensus isn't established in a couple hours. I think Canoe believed there was a legitimate concern, right or wrong, and people should not edit war over something like this. We're supposed to take a conservative approach and make sure we all *get it* before we shove potentially contentious material back into articles. -- Avanu (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That isn't an excuse for reverting SIX times. I agree, if it was a particularly bad photo of the subject, or if the subject had changed his appearence radically (say, converted to Buddhism) then there might be a point. But there isn't here. The subject/subject's record label have tried to push a non-free image into the article and been told that if they release it on a free rationale then everything is good. But they haven't done that. In the end, the only difference between the photo and recent photos is the length of the subject's hair. That's not a BLP issue, and I know this area of the music business. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The BLP policy is pretty clear and Canoe asserted it. The fact that others were pushing the material back into the article by reverting as well should clearly make everyone involved at fault if anyone is to be. A better and more policy-based approach would have been for an admin to lock the article for a short time, warn on the Talk page, and block thereafter if the behavior continued. Blocking someone who is asserting BLP when a consensus isn't established on Talk isn't in line with policy. Even admins aren't allowed to summarily dictate consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There was consensus, apart from that editor. I haven't "dictated consensus", because I haven't edited the article, I merely blocked Canoe (completely correctly) for edit-warring and incivility (and I even gave him the chance to self-revert beforehand, which he chose to reply with insults). If you think that "ssserting BLP" is a reason to be immune from standard sanctions, then you are wrong. If Canoe had had a reasonable point vis a vis BLP, I would not have blocked him. But he hasn't, so I did. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Good call on the allowance to self-revert. I don't think asserting BLP gives total immunity, but I do think it requires a higher level of caution. -- Avanu (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. But since this issue could be simply resolved by the subject (or their record label) issuing a single image on a free licence, I think the higher level of caution has been dealt with. Since they refuse to do so, and the existing free image is not a BLP violation, I don't think there's an issue here. But see below. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Image removal

So, taking into account the discussions on all the talk pages, anyone see a credible policy based reason for the image removal? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've got nothing. As I understand the situation, Canoe1967 is stating that De Luca personally requested removal of the photo. Following that, Canoe made numerous fairly dramatic and outrageous claims in defense of removing the image, none of which seem to amount to much of anything. Along with this, Moonslide (a spa) has made some less heated requests to kill the current image, also citing a personal conversation with De Luca and saying De Luca has a non-public reason for wanting this picture gone (saying the photo "Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_July_4#File:Rob_De_Luca_Live_2011.jpeg is not accepted by Rob De Luca anymore, it might be harmful to his career."). All of that adds up to two conflicted editors wanting to do De Luca a solid and asking us to do the same. That and a token will get you on the subway.

As for guidelines and policies, we obviously want a representative picture or pictures of De Luca and need it to be free. As far as I have been able to determine, the image is representative of a decent portion of De Luca's career and is free. I can find nothing in terms of policy, guidelines or common sense that would explain why we would degrade the article by removing the image. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no credible policy based reason to remove the image. There is also this statement by Moonslide about how De Luca uses the Wikipedia article as his CV and it doesn't accurately reflect him now, so his CV is out of date. That is not a reason to not have an available free image that accurately portrays him during his career on the article. We are not a free CV service for people. GB fan 17:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a hiring hall or publicity venue. If he wants a web page of his own, he can set up one for nothing on MySpace or some other popular website that allows the subject to control his public image. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To all who missed it: the current discussion is about this picture: [| Rob de luca.jpg] which should be deleted or at least be removed from the article on request from Rob De Luca. There was a replacement picture before Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_July_4#File:Rob_De_Luca_Live_2011.jpeg which has been deleted because a non free publicity picture is not accepted to replace a free picture to Wikipedia. and it takes time to find an alternate picture which is free. I uploaded this picture on request.

I thought would meet all criteria of fair use. I missed a detail and the picture was deleted without leaving any opportunity to discuss it. So the old pic was re-uploaded repeatedly I removed it repeatedly, so I was the first being warned about the edit war. There was a discussion going on about Mr De Luca's personal rights vs. Wiki image policies which came to a consensus after 6 (!!!) hours not leaving everyone time to participate. I live in Europe, I didn't have a day off on July 4th and was really busy, others might not have turned their computer on that day. So I think a lot of people, who might have contributed constructive ideas to solve the problem didn't even have the chance to participate. canoe1967 originally restored the pic the 3rd time after I kept removing it and he said about the edit war that the picture should be down until we come to a consensus. The consensus is, that A free picture must be uploaded and there is no way to to upload the copyrighted promotional pic Mr De Luca wanted so much up here. canoe1967 offered his help via contacting the record company that's how he got in touch with Mr De Luca. Easy to verify, contact the record company www.Lovemberrecords.com they will confirm that canoe1967 and I have direct contact with Mr De Luca.

I'm very shocked about how things went. Everyone agrees now that the new picture has to be free, Mr De Luca has to accept it. But is it really necessary use the old picture in the meantime? canoe1967 and I are working on getting a free up-to-date pic to Wiki commons. And exactly we were warned/blocked because of the edit war. FYI I found and posted the old pic back then it is so much more work to actually find acceptable pics for free than just restoring the link to the old one. It actually doesn't have a CC-SA 3.0 licence, just FYI. So why are those credited and remain unblocked who are simply restoring and old link instead of adding something new.

I'm really upset about GB fan's aggressive behavior, he closed the discussion after 6 hours because everyone agreed that the new pic must be free and there's (from Wikipedia point of view) nothing wrong with the old. But who says he has to restore the old one immediately? Wouldn't it have been an act of fairness and humanity to leave the old pic down for awhile if he KNOWS that people are working on it? There's no policy that says that an available pic must be up either.

I have idea why he wants this pic removed so much, I just tried to offer something logical, which has an impact on all performing artists, or maybe all living persons. So the CV reference is subject to pure speculation, same as his personality rights. I never said HE uses it as a CV. I said Wikipedia articles of performing artists function as a CV. In a nutshell: if someone wants to be hired for any job somewhere they will have a a look at you Wiki page if there is one available. He has a Myspace and a Facebook page btw, they'd still have a look at his Wiki page. And I agree that Wikipedia is NOT a promotional platform (You don't know how many things are not here I was asked to post, exactly for that reason). But one of the main principles of Wikipedia is neutrality. So an article about a living person or a band must not be in any way of disadvantage for their further career either. And be honest, who of us is so deeply informed about music business and marketing that we can really tell what is of clear disadvantage for a career in a picture? So please keep this in mind for possible discussions about other pictures, too. If somebody else loses a job because you re-post a picture that had been removed on request even if it seems to be unproven, you might go to court for it. Rob De Luca probably won't do it, others might.

I'm mainly writing this to restore canoe67 talk's reputation. First point of Wikipedia Etiquette Assume good faith. He did that. He believed me and contacted the record company and offered his help. Out of a sudden he had everyone against him and lost his head. Nobody believes him. Contact the [record company ] and ask them.

Moonslide (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you provide no policy based reason for the removal of a picture which has been in the article for two years. Personality rights in the U.S. have to do with the commercial exploitation of an image. This is not happening here. Also, this is completely incorrect: "So an article about a living person or a band must not be in any way of disadvantage for their further career either." If it were correct then no negative information about a BLP could appear in an article, ever (and I'm not saying the photo is negative). If you want to change our policy then make your points at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I still do not see a policy/guideline/common sense based argument for removing this image. I see that someone wants to remove the image and it seems that every conceivable argument is being tried to see if one will stick. Based on our policies and guidelines, the image is completely acceptable and, so far as I have been able to determine, is the best one currently available to suit our needs. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Note for Rob de Luca or his record label

This issue could easily be solved by you releasing a single free image of Rob as he currently appears. I realise that Wikipedia is a difficult thing to navigate for new editors, so if you'd like to email me, I can talk you through it. To do that, go to my talk page User_talk:Black Kite and click the "E-mail this user" link on the left hand side. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The current situation is exactly the *wrong* way to go about getting an unwanted pic removed from a Wikipedia article. To give an example of the right way, take a peak at the photo on J. Michael Straczynski. A few years back Straczynski decided that he intensely disliked the previous lead photo on his article. File:J Michael Straczynski 2007-05-12.jpg. Instead of raising a huge fight to get the old photo removed, he had someone take a new, well done photo, released it publicly with all the needed free-use licensing, and asked for one of his fans to replace the old one with the much nicer new one. One of the fans did this within hours, and the new photo has been the lead on his article ever since. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Image removal July 6

The picture in question [| Rob De Luca] has a personality rights warning tag. If you are confident that you know everything about personality rights laws, feel free to re-post it. You are will be hel responsible for it in case of a lawsuit, Wikipedia policies won't help you won't help you There might be points they don't cover, but law does. I myself have no idea what is wrong with the picture or if it would come to a lawsuit, but as the original uploader I remove this for the very last time, so I'm on the safe side. Everything else that happens after me, is out of my responsibility. Moonslide (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Personality rights in the U.S. have to do with the commercial exploitation of an image. This is not happening here. Also, see WP:NLT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Moonslide, as I mentioned elsewhere, don't even tease with mention of lawsuits. Read up on it at WP:NLT and realize that admins have no qualms about blocking immediately for infringements, perceived or not. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That does it, Moonslide. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)