Confusion over license attribution & credit

[beelzebomb]

Sometimes I read and re-read the Wiki Commons info to work out if I can use something commercially or not and still only end up about 90% certain rather than 100% certain!

I think I am able to safely use this lovely Art Deco image (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... egener.jpg) for example, to create prints for sale, as long as I link to the license.

But is the required 'link to the license' simply the general link given on the Commons page (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en) or is more required? It seems to me that anyone could simple link to such a license to justify their use of any image.

And is a simple 'image courtesy of wellcomeimages.org' satisfactory as credit?
Would I be within the guidelines if I had a link in my description pointing to a separate page that gives license and credit info to keep my description of the item 'clean and simple', so to speak?

On another similar Public Domain piece, there's a note, "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States" - with no further explanation which leaves me without a clue as to how or what.

[AndyJ]

Hi beezle,

I am also confused, but for a different reason. The portrait of Lili Elbe is by German photographer Gerda Wegener who died in 1940 which means her work is now in the public domain in virtually every country in the world (Mexico is one exception as their copyright term is the lifetime of the author plus 100 years). That being so I do not understand why a. the Wellcome Collection is claiming the image is in copyright, and b. why the image needs a CC licence in the first place.

Anyway, tThat wasn't your question. When dealing with CC licences it is best to stick to their licence terms as far as possible. So where the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence is concerned you need as a minimum to name the author and indicate that the work is being used under that particular licence. Ideally you would name the work as well, along with the source you got it from (see this page for more details). You don't need to put the whole licence as written above. This logo
would be OK so long as the logo as it was linked to the licence definition on the Creative Commons website.

Where there are circumstances which make putting all this information immediately beside the image impractical, as might be the case if for instance you wanted to frame these prints, you should put the attribution and licence information somewhere close by, like the back of the print or frame. Obviously you can't put a hyperlinked logo on the back of a print etc.

As for your last point, that just seems to be somebody's crackpot idea and isn't legally required either in the USA or anywhere else.