Commons:License laundering/ko
Wikimedia Commons의 모든 작업은 저작권 보유자'에 의해' 무료 라이선스 하에 배포되어야 합니다. 업로더가 저작권 소유자가 아닌 한 저작권 소유자가 라이선스에 따라 저작물을 배포했다는 증거가 필요합니다. 이는 일반적으로 via e-mail 허가를 제출하거나 저작권 소유자의 웹사이트에 공개 성명을 게시함으로써 이루어집니다.
What is laundering?
Laundering is the process of using a mechanism to remove an undesired trait. Clothes laundering may take the form of a washing machine (mechanical mechanism) to remove dirt (undesired trait). Money laundering may take the form of purchasing a gift card with a stolen credit card (transaction mechanism) to remove traceability (undesired trait). So too is license laundering: taking an image with a non-free copyright status (a disallowed, thus undesirable trait) and uploading it, without permission from the copyright holder, to a website that claims to release it under a free license.
License laundering is particularly common with photo sharing websites that allow their users to specify a free license for their images, such as Flickr or Picasa Web Albums. For this reason, the term Flickr washing to refer to license laundering via Flickr is also frequently used.
License laundering is problematic because it falsely presents as genuine a license for which the true copyright holder has not given their permission. Laundered licenses are thus difficult to detect as copyright violations, and indeed deceive good faith users who accept the illegitimate licenses at face value.
라이센스 세탁 감지
라이선스 세탁이 의심되는 경우 소스 사용자가 저작권 소유자라고 주장하더라도 파일을 deletion에 지정해야 합니다.
라이센스 세탁을 감지하는 방법에는 여러 가지가 있습니다. 가장 간단한 방법 중 하나는 제목/설명에서 키워드를 사용하거나 TinEye 또는 Google Search by Image와 같은 이미지 검색을 사용하여 이미지를 검색하고 공식 소스 웹사이트를 찾을 수 있는지 확인하는 것입니다. . 일반적으로 세탁된 파일은 웹의 다른 곳에서 사용할 수 있지만 종이 소스에서 스캔할 수도 있습니다.
Another simple technique is to look at the other photos included in the same page or set at the source website. Look at EXIF metadata if it is available. Were the images taken at about the same time, using the same camera, in the same location? Do they have about the same resolution and exhibit the same artistic style or level of quality? Or are they all dramatically different? A hodgepodge of images points to reproduction of others' images without permission, while similar images suggest legitimacy.
Examine the source website to determine who uploaded the images. On sites like Flickr, this information may be available through the user's profile information. Such information can give hints to the identity and profession of the uploader. If the file is high quality, the uploader should be identifiable as a professional or skilled hobbyist. If the file depicts models or celebrities, the uploader should be someone who works with celebrities.
For works that are published on a third-party platform such as YouTube or Flickr from an account claiming to belong to an organisation or well known person, check if the account is "Verified" by the third-party platform. The absence of a "Verified" status is not by itself problematic, but rather provides some weighting to arguments about whether license laundering may be occurring.
For works that are published on a third-party platform such as YouTube or Flickr from an account claiming to be officially affiliated with an organisation or well known person, check if the official webpage for the organisation or person has a link to the third-party platform account. Otherwise, check if the official social media accounts or blogs of the organisation or person are sharing content from the third-party platform account. Such links either prove or disprove a connection between the organisation or person and the third-party platform account.
Finally, it is often useful to contact the source website (e.g., message the Flickr user) and politely ask where they obtained the image in question. Often the person who borrowed the image will be happy to disclose that they are not in fact the copyright holder, and merely copied the image from elsewhere.
