Commons talk:No known restrictions

Controversial

I know this page will be controversial because previous discussions on this topic are controversial.

Since this issue comes up so regularly I thought there should be a page for central discussion, whatever else happens.

I encourage anyone else to make this page reflect Commons consensus. If that is not possible, then perhaps anyone could help identify all "no known restriction" templates in use and all past discussions on the matter and list them here to establish a basis for conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I made a few edits. The statement that a claim of "no known restrictions" alone is not sufficient is perhaps a little strong, although likely correct in the general case. In particular, Commons has a long standing practice of accepting these statements at face value from a small set of trustworthy institutions. As an example, Commons has long accepted the works in the collection of the Library of Congress which have a formal "no known copyright restrictions" rights statement analysis page. But this might be a special case, since the Library of Congress is the institution in the U.S. responsible for operating the U.S. Copyright Office, so it is hard to imagine a stronger authority short of an actual judicial determination that a work is in the public domain. —RP88 (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Village pump discussion

See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/01#No_known_restrictions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)