I would be fine
with such a policy. And I argue that
if we can tolerate a few fair-use images where they
are the only ones available we can also tolerate a
few used-with-permission images where those are the
only ones we can obtain.
If they truly are the only ones we can obtain, then
they're almost certainly fair use for us anyway.
That is by no means certain, even under U.S. law.
And I don't understand why it would be better to
rely on fair-use than on a permission.
The permission should be noted, but
isn't critical.
If we continue to forbid used-with-permission
images then people aren't going to bother to
get the permission to begin with.
But there's a huge difference between an image
being the
only one of its kind we can get under any circumstances, and being the
only image some editor is able to get a hold of.
In the past, even with Wikipedia-only permissions discouraged, far too
many users have thought it sufficient just to ask for permission without
asking for permission under a free license. Allowing this would
encourage people to be even more lazy about getting free images.
I profoundly disagree. Anyone going to the
trouble of asking for permission to use an
image *is not being lazy*. The lazy thing
to do is to slap a fair-use tag on the image
and don't bother about trying to get permission
This is precisely what the current policy encourages.
Regards,
Haukur