Commons talk:License laundering
Reverse license laundering
I think this page should also discuss the reverse case - websites (often those of prestigious archives and institutions!) falsely claiming to hold copyright over images which are in the public domain. Seen it in all sorts of places.
I can also see cases where general "for profit" image libraries - or newspapers - could acquire images freely licensed (such as via Flickr or Commons) and then try to claim them as their own, or at least reproduce them in a way that implies they hold the copyright. Ingolfson (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- The general accepted term for this copyfraud. It might be nice to have a page about it on Commons and cross-linked to this one, since a lot of people will take a dubious copyright statement at face value. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Following the deletion of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hotel_Karada.png and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Simulated_Forced_Fellatio_in_Bondage_Scenario.png, perhaps the rules should be clarified so that the presumption was against uploading sexual images from sites such as Flickr unless they have clear statements about how, where and when they were taken. There are far too many images on Flickr with obvious license laundering, and sexual images from this source also have COM:PEOPLE issues. There is really no need to import sexual images from Flickr just because someone crossed their fingers and promised that it was CC.--Ianmacm (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)