Hi Peripitus, The images added have been used by various websites and they are commonly spread over the internet and people are using it. If you search google you will find how frequent these images are being used and i have added the common ones and not the rare which leads to copyright violation as if that would be the case then no one would have used it except the copyrighted holder.... Kindly check my point of view before doing so, as i feel by adding it we are giving a realistic touch ( a face to the article of a living person who might be not so known by all of us.).I feel adding image is just giving more value additions to the articles  
Hi Suraj845. That is a common and understandable misconception. The images are copyrighted when created and most uses, including by most websites, without the authorisation of images owner is a breach of that copyright. Copyright is widely ignored across many websites, and I presume that it is too much trouble for the copyright holder (if they notice) to get them to remove the images. Some of the sites you see images on, though, have permission of the copyright holder to display the image. This permission does not extend to this site. Wikipedia seeks to only host free content ("Wikipedia - the Free Encyclopedia") except when there is no option and the use of the image meets the strict rules for this. While the images will add to the articles, it was decided long ago here that the use of such images goes against one of Wikipedia's five founding principles -  (Talk)