Hi, please be warned first that I am no legal expert. And since you are asking the intent of the Wikimedia Foundation, I believe the best answer comes from someone from the Foundation speaking in their official capacity.
That said, I have two-part answers. First, the board resolution is not limited to the issue of fair use/fair dealing issues alone. In copyright laws of many countries, there are other provisions limiting or restricting the scope of copyrights. For example, I see an English translation of the Copyright Law of Czech Republic. It has some such provisions (3 and 29-39, are the ones I noticed.) Does Czech Wikipedia allow images of street arts and architectural works? Under the U.S. law, it seems that images of architectural works could be posted to a Wikipedia when the photo is taken from a public space based on sec. 120. The U.S. law just does not grant such right to the architect. But works of public art is a different story, it seems. (sec. 113 covers it, and there is a case Leicester v Warner Bros. on the distinction). Czech Wikipedia might want to allow images of works of public art based on 1) U.S. law's fair use provision and 2) sec. 33 of the Czech Copyright Act. In that case, EDP should specify what kind of conditions must be met for a Wikipedian to post such an image.
An EDP of a wikimedia project is a policy on just how much non-free (but legally okay) images and other non-text media should be accepted on the wiki. We want only free-licensed contents, but EDP defines an exception to that principle, as Klaus Graf pointed out in his post.
Second, if you ask copyright holder/author's permissions for use, and if the images are free-licensed, I see little need for EDP. It is an explicitly licensed use of the work, as opposed to use based on provisions on limitations and restrictions of copyright defined by the law.
Hope it helps.
Best,
Tomos