against using non-commercial images unless we're using them
under fair use because we don't have a substitute.
If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take
whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them. On the contrary, non-commercial
images must be removed if they don't meet fair-use criteria.
Fair use images have to be removed as well if you reuse the contents in places
where the concept of fair use does not exist.
Not necessarily. It depends on the origin of the image. If the image
is owned by an American of an American subject he should not get greater
protection in Italy than he does in his own country.
The key here is
that we're producing a free-content *encyclopedia* on
Wikipedia, not a free library of the media used to create the content.
(Wikimedia Commons *is* a project creating a free library of media.)
This means the final goal is free-content articles. Non-commercial
images undermine that goal.
Fair use undermine that goal as well. Fair use is not a license, is "an excuse
to use copyrighted material". As such, it does not protect you from a legal action
and in the end a judge will decide if an image is used "fairly" or not.
Fair use is neither a licence nor an excuse; it is an exception to
copyright. Nothing protects anyone from a legal action by a determined
complainer, not even being excessively cautions in applying the law. If
a judge decides that it was not used fairly, then it was not fair use.
This does not negate the idea of fair use; it just means that the claim
was factually incorrect.
Beside that, please understand that you can't force
a community to abandon NC's, when they consider fair use as being worse than NC. No
way. As long as fair use will be allowed on en.wiki, NC's will be allowed on it.wiki.
I wish both will not be accepted, but NC is a licence, fair use is a trick, so for what
concerns me, if the latter stays, the former will stay as well.
Fair use is not a "trick" One should not depend on the other.