Creative Commons Attribution - What Good Is It ?

A person offers an image for free to use in any way (commercial or otherwise), … with the stipulation that the author be attributed in the manner that the author specifies.

Half the time, when I encounter creative commons images, especially on Wikipedia, there is NOT such a clear specification. There is merely an assumption that a person is supposed to know exactly how to specify what the author has failed to specify clearly. Even academic articles that you find on the internet have EXACT citation links that specify precisely what the attribution should look like.

Furthermore, the names of creative commons licensors (the people offering the licenses) are, more times than not, fake screen names, and so any uses of the images are supposed to somehow incorporate these fake screen names. The authors are not willing to stand behind the images with their real names, so how can I really take such authors seriously enough to even consider attributing them?

Some fake screen names are in poor taste, or they look so ridiculous that few people would take them seriously in situations that called for serious attributions. Hence, I will not attribute a “spiffy6niner”, or a “flowergirl5”, or a fractal artist putting forth the fake screen name, “frackme”.

For example, here I am trying to make a respectable transformational piece of art, and somebody expects to compel me to attribute part of this work to “frackme”. NO. I will not do it. Tell me your real name, and I will attribute it. Otherwise, I do not take you seriously.

And what about attributions that suggest that you give credit to a website. Nope. Not gonna do it. I do not advertise websites. I want to know the PERSON who created the image – a real name, and I will gladly attribute this artist. Otherwise, again, I really cannot take it seriously.

What are the consequences of NOT attributing a fake screen name or NOT attributing a website. The image was offered for free, so there cannot be any financial damage for non-attribution. There simply is a case where a given fake screen name did not appear in association with the use of an image, or a cyber address did not appear to advertise a website that gives away stuff for free. Is this a serious cause of action to go to trial? How ridiculous. I think it is not.

So what good is a creative commons attribution, if it does not reference a real name of a real person who created it in the real world? And if the fake screen name is so distasteful that it would jeopardize the transformational work that might reference it, then could the transformational artist sue the fake-named artist for defaming the reputation of his new derivative work?