Sean Barrett wrote:
I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey them.
Not obeying stupid laws doesn't get them changed; it bankrupts the violator from court costs and penalties.
Civil disobedience can be perfectly acceptable, but I think we're still quite far from even needing to consider that as a tactic. There is nothing illegal about fair use, so what law is being broken? There are still a number of steps to be followed (like a take down notice) before court costs and penalties become a factor. This alarmism is just another version of copyright paranoia.
Be reasonable.
It's easy to be "reasonable" when it's someone else you are driving into bankruptcy on your whim.
And not realizing that flagrant violations of the law will not result in widespread freedom, but rather the complete disappearance of Wikipedia is not reasonable, it is ... well, to use your word: stupid.
Being "reasonable" does not include "flagrant" violations. Flagrant violations are not the problem. The problem illustrations all have a strong element of reasonable doubt attached to them. There is no need to use whatever interpretation of the law would give us a worst case scenario. If there is a reasonable interpretation of the law which favours us we should follow that.
.Ec