> So now the analogy is maybe "you paid for an autograph from Mickey Mouse, but Joe Schmo signed it instead (you didn't find out until later). Disney sold the rights for Joe Schmo to use the name Mickey Mouse in autographs."
Right, I don't think someone selling something under licence is a problem/fraud, but if it's a key part of the "product" that you're buying is the provenance as well as the content, then that's what makes it fraud. From the article:
> Some correspondence directed recipients to purchase supposedly supernatural objects, while others urged them to use provided green envelopes to mail personal items—family photographs, palm prints, locks of hair—against a promise that the psychic would use them to conduct personalized rituals. “Once this envelope has been sealed, it may be opened ONLY by me,” read one letter that included Duval’s photocopied signature.
You're buying a service where you send in a personal item, it will only be opened by Duval and she'll conduct a personalised reading. Actually, your personal item is getting binned & you're getting a templated response from someone else (if you get any response at all).
Disney Corporation is fine to sell photos of Mickey Mouse with Walt Disney's signature on it or to licence Joe Schmo to do it for them.
But if they said "Original preparatory sketch by Walt Disney, signed by the man himself" and sold it for $10k and it turns out it's a reproduction signed by Joe Schmo, then that's a problem.