If you're wondering what's up with my tagging a lot of fair-use images, please read Robth's discussion below. It's originally from User talk:Quadell#Deleting replaceable fair use images, but I copied here because I felt it was the best overview I've yet seen.

Fair use criterion number 1 (non-replaceability) has been around forever--here is the version of that page from a year ago, with the criterion present; the problem is that enforcement was nonexistent. This was bad not only because we built up a great number of unacceptable-under-policy images, but because it allowed a great number of contributors to reasonably get the idea that such images were allowed. They were not, of course, and were subject to rather rapid deletion; this revision of CSD from back in September contains, as part of CSD I7, the line "Media that fail any part of the fair use criteria and were uploaded after 13 July 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader.". So replaceable images could have been deleted like that; a fair number also came through the copyright problems page. The logic behind the criterion is as follows: our primary goal here is to create a good free encyclopedia. Thus, we want to have as many, and as good, free images as possible. The reason we don't want to allow replaceable unfree images is that by putting them in an article we remove the incentive for a contributor to go out and take or otherwise create a new free picture. If you look at Quadell's talk page here, you can see several cases where a free picture was created almost immediately after a fair use one had been removed. I have seen a number of others mentioned; in some cases, we have fair use photos of common cars, or easily available items of food, which is just silly. We want free images of these things, and removing unfree images of them increases the likelihood that free images will be created. (Some of the discussions linked below contain further elaboration on this topic.)

What I assume people are talking about when they refer to recent policy changes is this edit to the fair use policy page. As explained here, those who discussed and inserted that language seem to have regarded it as a clarification of existing policy, not a change--and it was, in fact, bringing that page in line with the intent evident in the fair use criteria. Its result of course, has been a substantial increase in enforcement of things like FUC #1. As part of that process, Quadell created the {{Replaceable fair use}} tag to create a dedicated system for dealing with these cases. I think this was a good idea; it extended the discussion period before deletion to seven days, which is a good idea for a tag where it would be quite possible for something like a concept car to be mistakenly tagged, and it's best to ensure that the uploader has time to respond. It also creates a dedicated system to handle the very large volume of images that are being processed in this way.

Anyway, I hope this helps. I had to go digging around for a fair amount of this stuff just now myself, and I don't think that most people have seen the whole thing pieced together. Cheers, --Robth^Talk 15:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, please see:

• Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos#This page is dangerous
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use#Replaceable fair use
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use#Book cover author photos, and celebrities generally
• WP:VPP#Deletion of promotional photos

With tagging these images, I often hear, "Why can't we just keep this until we find a free replacement? Why do we have to delete it beforehand?" There are a few reasons, but here is a perfect example of one of them. This is (or was, if you're reading this after it's been deleted) a promotional photo of an Opel Vectra. A car! There are thousands and thousands made of them every year. There are several freely-licensed photos of them already on Flickr. Somebody tagged it with {{fairusereplace}} in March. Guess what: nobody's replaced it yet. Why not? Because it's already on the page. Now watch how quickly it's replaced after deletion. —Chowbok ☠ 06:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree this particular image could be easily replaced but I'd ask that you pay a bit more attention to detail with your Flickr research. The vast majority of those pictures are of totally different types of car. Unless you are actually suggesting a picture of a Nissan 350Z is a near enough replacement to a Vectra. I know which I'd would rather drive though ;) Jbuzza 19:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point; I didn't look that closely. Still, the first and third images are Vectras, correct? —Chowbok ☠ 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ends never justify the means. The fact that your method worked is no proof is is the best method or even an acceptable method. Your complaint that it was tagged in March and took 9 months to replace is the by-product of an ineffective system. Working towards a good system should be the goal, not just some system. --MECU≈talk 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Chowbok, especially since Jimbo Wales has taken the same stance. Overuse of fair use here provides a disincentive to the creation of freely licensed material for Wikipedia. We are one of the top websites in the world, with thousands upon thousands of active contributors. In the vast majority of cases where fair use is claimed, we can find a replacement image or take one that we can have under a free license. Our goal here is not the beauty of particular articles on the encyclopedia. Our goal here is to create a free encyclopedia. Fair use images directly detract from that goal and should be discouraged at every turn. Bravo Chowbok and thank you for taking on this often thankless work! --Durin 19:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)