Jimmy:
Second, for the case of non-bogus complaints (under German law) it makes sense (usually) for us to comply with them out of the interest of maximal reusability. This is a huge grey area, but for example the German Wikipedia policy of "no fair use" seems sensible to me.
Well, the situation on the German Wikipedia is not very satisfactory in this regard, and many editors are increasingly recognizing this. Articles which are richly illustrated in English are entirely without pictures in German. This is especially true in cases where we will never be able to get free content images of the characters, such as cartoon series. (Making them available as free content would allow the creation of derivative works, which obviously the creators do not want.)
An interesting exception is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons
Compare: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Simpsons
Here, the German Wikipedia is trying to be clever by using 3D puppets of the Simpsons characters. However, such puppet designs are just as much copyrighted as a other picture of the Simpsons cast, so the "workaround" isn't really a workaround at all. (Note that Disney has threatened bakeries for selling Mickey Mouse shaped cakes and the like.) It actually makes the situation worse because we claim that these pictures are GFDL and therefore can be used for derivative works and commercial purposes.
The simple fact is, you won't get free content pictures of the Simpsons cast. Just forget it. You can have photos of the voice actors, of course, but getting a picture of Homer Simpson even under CC-BY-ND-NC would be difficult. Permission for Wikipedia only might be possible, but I think we all agree that this isn't very helpful.
When the copyright policy on the German Wikipedia was originally drafted, I suggested making exemptions that are allowed for scientific purposes under German copyright law. However, that proposal was narrowly defeated by the now established "no fair use" doctrine. A heated discussion is underway to again somewhat relax the policy.
I agree with you that we should maximize reusability. There are, however, two additional comments I would make on this:
1) Many countries have legal frameworks which are similar, but not identical to the US framework. We should generally try to interpret local law in a way that is generous to us, as the above demonstrates. Insofar as German law has "fair use" like exemptions, I believe it is unwise to reject those.
2) We should *never* comply with laws that would violate the spirit of Wikipedia. [*] Having no pictures of the Simpsons in a free content encyclopedia is forgivable. Removing facts from an article about Taiwan because of fear of Chinese censors is not.
This is precisely what worries me about Chinese Wikinews -- that our current attitude to it emboldens users in the Chinese Wikipedia who would remove facts and justify it by citing the threat of censorship for the whole Wikipedia, or worse, justify it by citing your comments on this. Defying censors needlessly is indeed wrong, but so is appeasement if it affects our core principles.
I am concerned that the proliferation of chapters will contribute to more conservative legal interpretations, as people will feel they need to prevent the organization from being held liable (even if its bylaws explicitly disclaim liability). I think the above goals, if we agree on them, should be formally written down somewhere (perhaps the WMF bylaws, and a general chapter policy) and be introduced into the discussion process of any new chapter.
Erik
[*] Note that I did not say "foreign laws". What we should do if US law made Wikipedia's existence impossible as it is today is an interesting question. I personally believe that in an extreme situation, a new legal home for the project and its organization should be sought.