Template talk:PD-USGov-Congress

{{autotranslate|base=PD-USGov-Congress}}<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|{{{category|[[Category:PD US Congress|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>
{{In category|PD US Congress}}
{{Documentation}}</noinclude>
<noinclude>[[Category:PD-USGov license tags|Congress]]</noinclude>

All needed subfiles are created. Thank you. Kobac (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove "because it is an official Congressional portrait" from the template. Official portraits are PD only if the photographer was an employee of the Federal government. There is no requirement that a member of Congress use a congressional employee to take the official portrait and, since the best portrait photographers make much more than modest government salaries, there is good reason for members to go to private photographers. See Category:Official presidential painted portraits in the White House for examples of this problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Edit request}}

Please remove "because it has been released into the public domain and posted on the official websites of a member of Congress". This suggests that posting a photo on an official government website will release it into the public domain. This is categorically false, and has no basis in copyright law.  Mysterymanblue  09:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This change needs consensus. Seek Commons:Village pump/Proposals. 1989 (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]