From: "Brion Vibber" brion@pobox.com
And remember, folks, *no picture* is much better than a picture we can't redistribute. If you didn't make it with your own hands or scan it from a piece of paper older than 1924, and it doesn't have a "public domain" or "GNU Free Documentation License" note on it, think twice.
Good advice (is prior to January 1, 1923 or January 1, 1924?)
Don't waste everyone's time copying something that turns up in 3 seconds searching images.google.com; creating original works is better.
There may be the _rare_ occasion when an image is so publically well known (i.e. a famous photo of something that is very _news_ worthy) that practically any informational use may be covered by fair use, but that will be _very rare_. Most fair uses will not be 100% compatible with the GNU FDL.
But when I go on w.es.kissinger, I see an image...which is not an internal image, but rather an external link to another web site (but is displayed in wikipedia frame as well).
It was disabled on the English wikipedia, as that's where abuses were occuring (quite frequently). In any case I would _discourage_ such linking. And there have been enough crazy court decisions over 'deep linking' and such that I wouldn't rely on "it's just a link to another site, we're not _copying it_" for an image embedded into a web page. (IANAL)
This is a good point. Even if you don't keep a copy, it is still being copied automatically when it is being displayed on the Wikipedia page. Someone does not have to click on it to go to another web page. Therefore some jury or judge can easily make a legal finding that the deep link is a copy on Wikipedia (never know what judges or juries will do until the law becomes well settled).
Alex756 (IAAL, but it's NALO [not a legal opinion]!)