David Monniaux wrote:
The big problem is that, as things are now, if A uses photos from B in an advertisement, it is generally interpreted as B endorsing A.
If they really wanted to release an image, they could find a way. They have solved more complicated problems than this, things that really are rocket science. Therefore, if they don't release any images, this must be interpreted as a lack of will. And so be it. We cannot force them. All we can do is to leave their articles without proper illustrations.
Let me tell an odd story from Sweden: The website of the Swedish parliament provides portrait photos of all 349 members. These photos are free for any use, and are now at Commons, e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gunilla_Carlsson.jpg But the website of the Swedish government provides portrait photos that are free for any use *until* the next election in 2010, after which the full copyright returns to the photographer! So the government didn't buy the photos of themselves, they just rented them for four years, http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2000 Again, if they really wanted they could of course get photos without this strange time limit. It's a simple contract with the photographer. It's not rocket science.