# Talk:Bay Freeway (Seattle)

I can't see much reason to leave that "external image" of the map as external. It would qualify for Commons. We have literally thousands of images from the Seattle Municipal Archives. As it says on the linked page, "Photographs contained in this database are public record and do not require permission for use, unless otherwise stated in the Notes field. Please cite our images Courtesy of the Seattle Municipal Archives and include the item number." Basically, that's equivalent to CC-0 with a request for attribution. - Jmabel | Talk 02:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Would it be worth talking to the Archives about outright stating their license policy with a CC equivalent? I'm always hesitant to upload stuff from archives that don't have a really direct and clear copyright notice. SounderBruce 04:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: I've talked with them about this before. Admittedly it's been a few years, but at the time they said that they were more comfortable with their current wording than with something from a third party like Creative Commons. The problem is that they are concerned about trying to vet so much material and find the items on which some third party might own copyright. They've always been very generous when there is any specific question. E.g. Commons:Template:PD-Seattle-Neighborhood-Atlas. When they put stuff on Flickr (3-5 images a week) they use Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic; they've remarked to me that they never would complain if someone failed to attribute them, but they felt it clarified their desire to be attributed.
I think the statement on their own site is actually clear enough but if anyone doubts that for specific material, I am sure you can get them to grant a specific license through OTRS. As I say, they've always been very generous. - Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)