`  ==Update re: ``public domain`` in the United States== Some parting comments re: the two images; for those still seeking to document the licenses that reference ``public domain`` in Poland and/or in the United States, one might want to take a look at the ``Photo credits`` in the PBS (U.S. public television) documentary Website for its series Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State (2005); about a week ago I edited the article on the BBC program to include the source citations for the PBS broadcast of the same program (with diff. title). :(cont.) Today, while searching ``images of Auschwitz prisoners public domain`` out of residual curiosity re: this matter, I located one photo credit referring to ``public domain`` in the U.S.-published Website for the BBC program shown on PBS: it is a photo credit for ``Auschwitz prisoners`` (not Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum/Wilhelm Brasse photographs, but photographs taken contemporaneously at Auschwitz in period from 1940 to 1945, depicting prisoners outside on the grounds of the camp at a barbed wire fence, e.g.: see Credits, scroll down to ``Auschwitz prisoners``, and go to page 1 (hyperlinked) to see the photographs.  If PBS is citing ``public domain`` in the United States, this might be a helpful precedent to cite re: Auschwitz photographs (taken by Polish photographers w/o copyright credits being given?).  Just a thought. ::(cont.) I do not expect to be editing Wikipedia much if at all in the near future, so I thought I'd leave others with this possible publication precedent in the U.S. for citing U.S. (and possiblly worldwide) ``public domain`` re: photographs of Auschwitz prisoners; though I am not sure it applies in the UK or European Union too; that would not matter if it applies in the U.S. ::(cont.) The so-called duplicate photograph (3 poses) of Kwoka in the Wik. Commons file of same name is not exactly the same; it would be a good idea to rename the Wikipedia version as asked in the template to reduce possibility of deletion; the one in Wik. Commons still has the Museum captions in it and by virtue of that is possibly not in the public domain.  The cropped one w/o the Museum captions has a stronger argument for ``public domain`` in the U.S.  (The one that is more clearly a photograph of the Museum-captioned photograph has a weaker argument as such, though I am not sure of that.  See the various discussions of the two images linked via the templates.) It is important to correct the conflict/problem pointed out via the templates of the duplicate names for images that have conflicting licenses/fair use rationales in Wik. and Wik. Commons.  If the images are determined by the reviews to be public domain in the U.S., they do not need fair-use rationales; they can be files in Wikipedia Commons (w/o Museum captions/the cropped version currently in this article) and not duplications w/ same name in Wikipedia (??).   `