On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Justin Cormack wrote:
No, it has been accepted but not enforced. It has always been agreed that we dont accept fair use images when we can have free ones.
But "can have" is, I think, being interpreted in a way which is far from universally accepted. Was it really intended all along that we "can have" a free image when all that that means is that someone, somewhere, could track down a person and take a photograph under a free license, regardless of how hard the person is to track down or how much stalking one would have to do to get the photograph?