DISCLAIMER: This article doesn’t contain any illegal material.
Below is a 1889 painting by Canadian painter Paul Peel, which is a Canadian heritage and is on display at National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa and is listed under public domain at wikidata.org. Given these two point we know this is completely legal. The image is hotlinked from wikidata.org, which is sister organization to wikipedia.org, so the image has to be legal.
So far so good. But the other day caybertip.ca (known for scraping iMGSRC.RU to at least partially justify their use of taxpayers money) has sent us a notification that the very same image hosted on iMGSRC.RU
“[..] pertains to a child who is either a victim whose child sexual images or videos that are known to police, or a victim who has been assessed to be under the age of 18 by our analysts who are trained in assessing signs of child development and sexual maturation. In either case, our position is that the content is harmful [..]”
Seriously? You, “analysts who are trained” report image of a picture that is exhibited in your country’s National Gallery. You call it harmful and still have it available to the public. How can we trust an organization pulling this kind of jokes? Or, in case this is real and this is serious “child sexual images” claim and not a joke, how can we trust a country having child porn on display in National Gallery?
Can someone give me idea about the logic behind this?
