::The discussion you link to is not about the photograph, so I'm not sure what your point is. You appear to be upset that in the photograph Ludwik is wearing a military uniform which you don't particularly enjoy looking at. Wellllll... maybe you should take that up with the person who took the photo? I mean, I really don't know what to tell you here. You seem to be saying that the photograph was taken in some nefarious POV way but given when it was taken, before WW2, that ... sort of doesn't make any sense. 
 ::As to the BRD, yes you quoted "BRD" at me in your edit summary. After you reverted twice. Without discussing the issue which is actually relevant (instead trying to get your way by claiming the photograph was a copyvio). And after I already "discussed" - did the D - on talk. The progression of changes suggests that you are either not quite clear on what "BRD" means, or you are just quoting it randomly to get your way. Now, if you read the guideline (not policy) carefully, it turns out that "follow BRD" does not actually mean "don't you dare revert me motherfucker!". It means "be bold", "revert", "discuss". So maybe you should try following some of these steps yourself rather than mindlessly quoting policy. 
 ::Finally, as to the "there is no consensus for the inclusion of this photograph". That seems to be a different way of saying "IIIraute don't like the photograph, IIIraute remove!". I'm not the only one who put the photo in the article. You are confusing WP:IDONTLIKEIT with WP:CONSENSUS in a way which very strongly suggests a problem with WP:OWN on your part in regard to this article. The photo illustrates the subject matter (though you've been trying to remove as much as you can of that too) and hence is relevant and useful to the purpose of the article. People quote "Consensus!" all the time when they actually seem to mean "I get to have my way!". But just like BRD is not what you think it actually is, "consensus" is not a divine right to veto any change you don't like.