It's about time we had this debate again. Morally, ethically, legally: what
are we required to do to meet the "attribution required" aspect of certain
free images we acquire from Flickr or other sources, including our own
contributors?
Viewpoint #1: Provided the information is available on the image information
page, which can be reached by clicking the image, then attribution
information is available to anyone who wants it.
Viewpoint #2: The attribution should be more visible, such as beneath the
image in articles. This is the standard used by newspapers, for instance.
People who licence their work under "attribution required" licences are
expecting a bit more than a begruding source tag hidden behind a mouse
click.
Personally I am of viewpoint #2, and feel that we are short-changing
photographers who generously release
their work for virtually no recompense. I feel that if we are not
willing to attribute the photo properly, by putting the owner's name
at the same level
as the photo, then we should bar the use of these kinds of images.
Some powerful persuasive arguments for either of the above viewpoints, or
any other, would be nice.
(Why this has arisen now: I created a {{credit}} template for this purpose
and used it in a couple of places. I was reverted. So more opinions are
needed.)
Steve
PS
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ states that "You must
attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but
not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the
work)." but in practice no one seems to specify a particular method.
The ramifications of that practice are open for discussion.