"

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 (??).   "