There is no direct link to the CC3(|4) license on Wiki's <Alice Lee> page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice...

unlike for <CG>:

Alice Lee

Can't put it any plainer than that.

* * * *

Remember, Wiki doesn't hold the copyright either, so they are like <CG> in that sense.

So, to be explicit - some editor's are basically inventing requirements that Wiki itself doesn't follow - i.e. making explicit this link:

https://creativecommons.org/license...

visible under the photo.

I maintain it's unnecessary, and Wiki agrees.

My suggestion is to just put a link to the Wiki source page, i.e. the same place you go when you click the photo on <Wiki> itself.

But copyright law is applicable, and thus carries legal weight, even if unenforced for a period of time. As the AI (correctly) states:

<No, a copyright doesn't automatically become invalid just because it's not actively enforced, but it can impact your ability to pursue a lawsuit or claim full damages. >

We're trying to provide a high standard here on <CG> (I hope), and best practice. That's one reason I keep posting on the topic.

What is so damn hard about putting a link to the wiki-media page?!

Inventing?

Wikipedia is it's own site and how they display the license is their responsibility, which they do on this page (the image's primary page):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:...

We display a link to the license on <CG>'s primary page for the image.

The license under which the image was released, https://creativecommons.org/license..., clearly states the terms, which <CG> is following.

In your reasoning you believe that linking to a site that links to the license is just as valid as providing the link directly as it is a "reasonable manner" of compliance (which it may be).

(Especially if you know how to archive a page from the net yourself - a technique I learned from <Tab>)

As for the rest - well, he (or she) who does the work of putting the photo on <CG> does get an extra share on how it's done.

Wikipedia is just a website making use of an image that was released under the Creative Commons 3.0 license. They give attribution (by way of a Wikipedia username and a link to the license). That's it. Wikipedia is out of it. They are no longer involved.

We come along and use that image on a different website and being the good little net citizens that we are, we properly give credit and link to the license, i.e. basically the same thing Wikipedia did.

Not complicated or confounding in any manner.

It's a simple concept: To use a Creative Commons 3.0 licensed image, just give credit, link to the license, and mention any changes made. That's the only requirement.

The issuing authority is not relevant? We moved beyond the rational.

<I'm not sure why you are hung up on what Wikipedia does or how they display the license, but that's your own internal issue to deal with I guess.>

Someone is definitely beyond the rational...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cre...

You're mixing apples and oranges.

Look, it's simple, Wiki itself doesn't comport with your reading of the license and your internal issuing authority is having difficulty with that fact.

Please show me other examples of people using CC3/4 material on the net where the license is featured with each piece of material used.

If the Bistro was working properly we wouldn't have this endless back and forth, at some point we'd close the discussion and take a vote on it.

I think you are confusing source of the image (Wikipedia) with the proper re-use of the copyrighted image. The image was released under the Creative Commons 3.0 license. All we have done is complied with the terms of that license.

It doesn't matter what Wikipedia has or hasn't done (as far as I know they do list the license every image is released under on that image's page, i.e. click on an image and get taken to the image's main page).

The issue is that your interpretation of compliance. As if it's the one and only.

It's not even followed by Wiki itself.

See "Map illustrating the US geographic combatant commands before the reassignment of Greenland in the command structure."

I'm sure you can use Google to find other examples.

<The issue is that your interpretation of compliance. As if it's the one and only.>

My "interpretation" is following the terms as written. I never said it was the one and only, it's just a non-ambiguous reading of the terms.

<It's not even followed by Wiki itself.>

<Source: Lancer, CC BY-SA 3.0>

No linking to legal boilerplate.

As someone granted the ability to make changes to <CG> it is incumbent upon me to act as a good steward and in doing so I take the utmost care in doing things, especially those that may have a legal ramification to this website, in a proper manner.

If you recall, I wasn't even going to use the image found on Wikipedia until I read over the Creative Commons license. I followed the dictates of that license and posted the image to Alice Lee's page.

If your complaint is with how the link looks I can change it to the shorter <CC BY-SA 3.0> text, but the fact remains, if I'm uploading an image then I'm responsible for following any and all terms tied to the image. Period.

If another editor wants to make alterations after the fact then that's on them.

[Event "British Chess Club Handicap Tournament (Two moves)"] [Site "London"]
[Date "1887.03.07"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Wainwright, George Edward"]
[Black "Zukertort, Johannes Hermann"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A40"]
[Opening "Queen's pawn game"]