Simple: Then it's not "free" as Commons
understands the term and should
remain on en locally. I guess that using an image that is only PD in the
US is no better than using an image that is only covered by the US fair
use laws, at least when we're discussing potential international
reusers, which we are.
Sensible, but the portion of our images which are really free to use
anywhere in the world forever may be smaller than you think. Even images
created by Wikipedians and released "into the public domain" might be
problematic in some jurisdictions if the image creator changes her mind
about the licence. The whole concept of permanently licencing away your
rights to an image is badly supported in laws around the world. Sometimes
there are stipulations that any licencing of your rights to another party
can only last for X years.
And I wouldn't fancy trying to defend the byzantine GFDL (which most
Wikipedians have never read and Wikipedia itself is only barely in
compliance with) in courtrooms around the world. And whatever the licence
you'll always have to rely on the judges agreeing that by writing
something into our edit boxes you're doing something legally binding.
The line dividing 'free' and 'non-free' is a lot fuzzier than one would
like.
Regards,
Haukur (IANAL)
P.S. Here's one issue I'm wondering about, look at this image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KingOfAtlantisEJ.jpg
This is a photo of an Icelandic sculpture. Under Icelandic laws the
copyright of the person who made the sculpture is important for how the
photo can be used. This image is definitely not free in Iceland. Is it
free in the US? Can anyone help me find out?