"David Monniaux" a écrit:
In some instances, this is a case of protection of image: they don't want their image to be associated with products or political campaigns without their authorisation, and it's much easier for them to act on grounds of copyright infringement than on other grounds (especially since in some cases they cannot claim trademark protection).
GFDL is in fact really strong. If a GFDL image was used to advertise Coke, then the whole advertisement could be claimed to be under GFDL. Now think about the legal issues a company could have putting their logo next to the GFDL image... I highly doubt to found in my snail mail an ad saying "Buy XYZ", with three GFDL pages appended. Would be a nice paper to keep though ;)
It's more a matter of license-knowing, so instead of accepting material under such _irregular_ license (what would decide the use limits?), it'd better to inform the copyright holders and ask them to free it. Plus, not allowing fair use, thus saying "the only way to have this on wikipedia" is also a good wayy of receiving images that would be otherwise forced to the fair use.