That, and plenty of those kinds of sites will fall for a hoax even if it's written in comic sans and presented to them on April 1st.
But, that said, if it is the case that we can find some photos that fell through the copyright cracks above and would be considered PD, then any non-free should be immediately replaced with the PD image, but we can't reasonably expect that to be the case to start with.
--MIt's only really since digital cameras became common consumer goods (early 1990s) that photography has become an everyday occurrence, before that personal photography was reserved for "special occasions", so photos of show dogs from before the 1990s are most likely to have been taken by professional photographers for publication.
So, I'll concede that point, although even so, it's been 20 years since 1990.
That and I'm sure at least some of such professional pictures of dog show dogs were never registered and have fallen into public domain as being more than 5 years since publication (or 28 years since some stuff in the late 60's and the 70's).
Even though a screenshot might suddenly hit the web doesn't mean that a new build hasn't completely changed things (see the Vista development), and an image would give one iteration extreme weight over another.
I think having a guideline where the only pre-releases that get into articles are through exceptions means that the community wouldn't get locked into editing wars, and major changes could get through if the community agrees it should.Now, there is a heavy burden on the person who uploads such a file to Wikipedia or who wants to keep it in a Fd D discussion to convince the community that the software was indeed "published" in fact even if it appears "not published" on its face.Before any screen-shots from this particular "leak" are allowed, the uploader will need to show the community that the "leak" was a "true publication by the content owner" albeit an "un-official" one that the content owner may deny responsibility of.These are individual dogs, and they win based on their conformation or appearance, so an image is important to the article.Is it considered acceptable to use the available pictures of these dogs, or would it be best to create the articles without them?I know I have a trunk full of old horse show photographs (my mother used to show horses, and I was dragged along) that I could scan in and offer as free images.