Differentiate between attribution encouraged/appreciated vs attribution mandatory/required

[dhruvkb]

Problem

The images that are in the public domain either through CC0 or PDM, do not require attribution (although we do encourage and appreciate it). On the other hand CC-licensed images require attribution as part of the license terms.

Since all single result pages treat attribution the same, it is not clear if the attribution is required as a part of the usage of the image.

Proposal

There should be some indication to indicate attribution as optional for public domain images so that it associates attribution to be mandatory by default in the minds of the user. The current system might make it seem like attribution is equally important for public-domain/CC-licensed images, which can cause some users to make the assumption that it is optional for all images.

References

The WP Photo Directory, which only hosts CC0 images, uses this phrase in the attribution, "Photo attribution is not necessary, but appreciated. If you'd like to give credit to the photographer, feel free to use this text", followed by an attribution widget that is strikingly similar to that of Openverse.

[openverse-bot]

Subscribe to Label Action

cc @WordPress/gutenberg-design, @WordPress/openverse

This issue or pull request has been labeled: "🖼️ aspect: design" Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels: * WordPress/gutenberg-design: 🖼️ aspect: design * WordPress/openverse: 🖼️ aspect: design To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the .github/subscribe-to-label.json configuration file. [Learn more.](https://github.com/bytecodealliance/subscribe-to-label-action)

[sarayourfriend]

I love this issue. I especially love that you have mentioned that it can cause confusion in both directions. Just as it can leave users with the assumption PDM or CC0 works require attribution, flattening the delivery of that obligation under the licence undermines users' awareness of the differences between each licence.

I wanted to bring up a potential complication due to moral rights, which may or may not be able to be waived to varying extents depending on jurisdiction.

We should get a lawyer to review whatever copy we come up with for this, but I think as long as we make it clear that we are relaying the requirements stipulated by the licence, rather than a general obligation (or lack thereof) to attribute. That goes hand in hand with the additional clarification that users should double-check the licence at the source.