"the scammer used public domain images to insert affiliate links, websites that generate payment based on visitor clicks"
https://hyperallergic.com/612077/the-unsettling-story-of-a-public-domain-photo-scam/
I'm surprised that isn't happening more often. Sad, but obvious once you hear about it. I suspect that as this article gets shared around, it will give a lot of people some ideas.
I do wish the author and editor knew what "public domain" means.
Teaser: "Photographer Kyle Cassidy released one of his images into the public domain."
Second sentence of the main article: "Anyone can use it free of charge, even modify it, under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License — so long as they credit him properly."
This is like when people think something released under GPL is public domain. If you're going to write an article about copyright violations, you should know the difference.