Here is a photo. Following it are some examples of how people might attribute it.
This is an ideal attribution
- Title? “Creative Commons 10th Birthday Celebration San Francisco”
- Author? “tvol” – linked to his profile page
- Source? “Creative Commons 10th Birthday Celebration San Francisco” – linked to original Flickr page
- License? “CC BY 2.0” – linked to license deed
This is a pretty good attribution
- Title? Title is not noted (it should be) but at least the source is linked.
- Author? “tvol”
- Source? “Photo” – linked to original Flickr page
- License? “CC BY” – linked to license deed
This is an incorrect attribution
- Title? Title is not noted.
- Author? Creative Commons is not the author of this photo.
- Source? No link to original photo.
- License? There is no mention of the license, much less a link to the license. “Creative Commons” is an organization.
This is a good attribution for material you modified slightly
- Title, Author, Source, and License are all noted
- Modification? “Desaturated from original”
This is a good attribution for material from which you created a derivative work
- Original Title, Author, Source, and License are all noted
- Derivative? “This work, “90fied”, is a derivative of…”
- New author of the derivative work is also noted
Note: If you’re at a point where you are licensing derivative works, go to Marking your work with a CC license.
This is a good attribution for material from multiple sources
- Title? Specific works are named, eg. “Box-and-whisker Plots”
- Author? Different authors noted for the different works.
- Source? Original materials are linked for each work
- License? The different licenses (Creative Commons Attribution for Collaborative Statistics and Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike for the Khan Academy video) are spelled out and linked for each work
- Lastly, it is clear which attribution belongs to which work.
You can visit the Saylor.org Introduction to Statistics course page to see how they marked it up directly.