File:Cold Spring Harbor album cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CycloneGU ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Billy Joel - Piano Man.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TUF-KAT ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Both album covers were originally published in the US without an attached copyright notice (sources: Discogs [for Cold Spring Harbor], Your Vinyl Shop [for Piano Man]). They are thus in the public domain due to failing formalities and should be transferred to Commons as {{PD-US-no notice}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Your assessment might be correct, but the copyright notice could've been published on the inner or back covers. The fact that such notices aren't visible on the front cover itself doesn't necessary mean "no notice". Moreover, two websites hosting images of the covers without a visible notice could possibly be due to cropping or some other reason. Do you own copies of these albums? Can you check all the inner/back covers if you do?
  This might be the back cover of Cold Springs Harbor, and it does look like there could be a copyright notice at the bottom of the cover where you'd kind of expect to find such things. The photo used on the front cover could also be attributed somewhere on the back cover too. I don't believe album covers were required to a copyright notices on the front per se since photos weren't required to have a copyright notice on the front, but I could be mistaken about that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The link you gave is a 2021 re-release per the copyright notice, not the original 1971 release.

  I don't believe album covers were required to a copyright notices on the front per se since photos weren't required to have a copyright notice on the front, but I could be mistaken about that. I think a statement like this could mean that album covers like c:File:Are You Experienced - US cover-edit.jpg may actually be under copyright, but I could also be mistaken. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The link I provided shows the statement "Copyright 1971, 2021 Columbia records a division of Sony Music Entertainment. Originally release 1971. All rights reserved by Columbia Records ..." at the very bottom of the back cover. It's hard to see, but it's there. Whether this matters I can't say for sure. Perhaps it it would be a good idea to ask about this at c:COM:VPC because that's where these files are going to end up if these are PD for not having a notice. Anyway, the description for File:Are You Experienced - US cover.jpg which is the source for the enhanced quality file you linked above, does make mention of their being no copyright notice on the front or back; so, it might matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ThomasNelson-Williams.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiaddict8962 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:ClaudeNelson-Williams Chairman.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiaddict8962 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The editor has uploaded many photos from different years and probably taken in different places. As they writes on their user talk page, they owns the photo album. I think this is a misunderstanding c:COM:Own work. I think in each case it should be proven that the rights to the photos actually belong to uploader. — Ирука¹³ 09:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: I've added a second file to this discussion because it has essentially the same issues as the first file nominated, and also because it's related to this discussion started by the uploader on my user talk page. I originally tagged both these files both these files with {{npd}} because there's really no way to verify the uploader's claim that this is their own work since the uploader basically uploaded the each file with a CC license and no information about the image's provenance. I explained why this was done at User talk:Wikiaddict8962#File permission problem with File:ThomasNelson-Williams.jpg and the uploader responded by removing the speedy deletion tags. I've got no problem with any of that, but I don't think Wikipedia can keep these files as licensed without at least having the uploader's claim of copyright authorship verified by WP:VRT or perhaps find a way for them to be relicensed to something else even possible as non-free.
  Given that Claude Nelson-Williams, the subject of the photos, died in 1989, there's simply no way the uploader could've taken these photos on the February 2025 dates given in each file's description. These certainly could've been scanned or re-photogrpahed on those dates, but the scanning of a photo or taking a photo of a photo doesn't create a new copyright explained in c:COM:2D copying; so, it's only the copyright statuses of the original photos that matter. Furthermore, physical possession of a photo doesn't automatically make one its copyright holder, unless the person possessing the photo is claiming to have taken it themselves or the copyright was somehow transferred to them by the original copyright holder; in either of those two cases, it should be too hard to provide more information about the photo's provenance. So, there might be a way to relicense these files so that they can be kept; that, however, is going to be hard to determine without knowing more information about their respective provenances. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The respective provenances of these photographs are from a private album. Unless I or other members of the subject matter's family give permission for these photographs to be published elsewhere, no one else should be in possession of them. Without giving away my location and provenance, in common law the copyright attaches to the photograph, except where it is specifically commissioned. These photographs were commissioned and formed part of a distinct private album extracts of which are now uploaded here and are in my possession. The subject matter in question is directly related to me so I speak with authority when I state that no one else, except other close family of the subject matter, are in possession of these photographs. Wikiaddict8962 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you read the terms of the copyright license you chose when you uploaded the photos to Wikipedia? If you didn't, then maybe you should do so now. You uploaded these photos under a license that allows these photos to be downloaded from Wikipedia by anyone in the world at anytime for any purpose, including commerical and derivative reuse; moreover, the license you used is irrevocable and basically remains in effect until the photos enter into the public domain for one reason or another. Others can use these photos even in ways that you might not like and there's not really anything you can do to stop them. You understand all of this, right? So, the fact that you possess copies of these photos or that they're from a private album no longer really matters because you've made them available to the whole world to do what they want with them as long as they comply with the terms of the license you chose. You also understand that Wikipedia is under no obligation to use or even host these photos just because you decided to upload them. So, unless you email your WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT, these images will most likely ended being deleted. Moreover, the same would pretty much apply to most of the other files you uploaded to Wikipedia under the same type of license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you missed what I was stating. I provided the origin/provenance of these photographs which you were not au fait with. In terms of copyright and licensing, without divulging much of my background, I am very familiar with the legalities around copyright, licensing, etc. I drafted this Wikipedia page with the full knowledge that the photographs would be available publicly. Wikiaddict8962 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're unable to divigue more about the provenance (such as who took the photo, when it was taken and where it was taken) of these photos on their file pages, or unable to verify your claim of copyright authorship/own work with Wikimedia VRT, then I think it's going to be hard for them to be kept. The same will probably be the case for many of the other files you uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons. VRT verification does allow you to avoid publicly divulging too much about who you are because VRT members sign an agreement not to publicly disclose the information of the emails VRT received or even discuss such details with anyone other than the sender and other VRT members; all anyone looking at the file's page will see is some general information about the file's provenance (when and where it was taken perhaps), a copyright license, and the template {{PermissionTicket}}. However, without an example of prior publication showing the photos have been released as you've licensed them or some sort of formal verification by VRT, it's basically going to be discussions like this or at c:COM:DR that will determine whether Wikipedia or Commons can keep a file. If a consensus is established to delete a file due to significant doubt about its licensing, then it'll be deleted unless there's a way to relicense it to make it policy compliant. Some of the files you've uploaded locally to Wikiepdia (like File:TraditionalCreolehouses1885.jpg) might've already entered into the public domain and only need to be relicensed to something like c:Template:PD-old-assumed-expired, but more recent images might be harder to sort out. In some cases, it might also be possible to treat a file as non-free content, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and prevous publication is one the policy's ten non-free content use criteria. One of the two files being discussed here could possibly be converted to non-free and used in the main infobox if previous publication can be established given that the subject of the photo died in 1989, but it would be very hard to justify both of them per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for this information @Marchjuly.

  I can provide separate sources to the images that appear in my private album.

  A larger image of the second image (C-N-W with the bowtie) can be found on the website of my relation dedicated to his father. He can easily provide permission. I have the original newspaper articles in my album in which the two other photographs also appear - namely the now defunct Sierra Leone Daily Mail. None of these sources are online and the original photographs remain with the family. Wikiaddict8962 (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If some of the photos you uploaded appeared in a newspaper, then they're not really your c:COM:Own work per se unless you actually took the photos yourself and then allowed the newspaper to use them. If someone else took the photos, then that person is the copyright holder and that person's WP:CONSENT is what's going to be needed. Scanning photos taken by others, even when you have their permission to do so, isn't something typically considered to involve enough creative input to generate a new copyright for the scan under US copyright law, and US copyright law is what Wikipedia primarily goes by since its servers are located in the US. However, the fact that they were published in a newspaper could help narrow down their respective dates of first publication, which in turn might help determine whether they've already entered into the public domain per c:COM:Sierra Leone. If you can provide information such as the date of the newspaper in which they were published, then that would be a big help. Even if they're still considered under copyright protection for some reason, the fact that they were previously published might make some of them OK to treat as non-free content.

  The other photos your relation has might be harder to use as non-free content if they've not been c:COM:PUBLISHed, but they might be OK to treat as c:Template:PD-heirs if your relation is a relative of the person who took the photos and the copyright of the photos passed on to them as part of some kind of inheritance upon the death of the original copyright holder; your relation could then also email their CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT for verification purposes to make things absolutely clear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for outlining the above. As I outlined above, the family retains the original photographs which are in the private album in my possession. The family also provided the photographs to the newspaper which is why the family retains the original photographs and also cut out images (possibly from the newspaper articles) in addition to the newspapers articles themselves - all of which appear in the private family album. None of these photographs/articles can be found online. There is no date in the family album of the original image of C-N-W as chairman of the FCC Management Committee but we know it dates to the 1960s; the newspaper article featuring this photographs dates from 19 September 1964. There is no date in the family album of the original image of C-N-W which features as the main photograph in the article but we know it dates to the 1970s; the newspaper article featuring this photographs dates from about 1990 and was an in memoriam notice from the family on the one year anniversary of his death. Wikiaddict8962 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]