I don't have time tonight to fix this page -- but it should be removed, or dramatically changed.
Attribution is mostly NOT a function of copyright law. One clue: the article does not cite any section of the Copyright Act.
1. Historically, copyright had NOTHING to do with attribution.
2. In recent years, USA has adopted the European concept of "moral rights" (Droit morale) with its notion of "paternity" (the right of a creator to be acknowledged as the "father" of a work) but this is not the same thing as a right to receive attribution, and it applies in only limited circumstances.
3. What a particular license says is no indication of what the law requires with respect to attribution.
4. Many areas of law *do* affect the right to attribution, including statutes specific to certain industries (such as recordings of music), and the law of misrepresentation (for example, if one artist is given credit, but another who contributed equally did not).
In short, the writer of the original article knows nothing of the law of attribution.
I concur with this. I agree with the intent, but I don't agree with it's facts. I think this page could discuss various ways attribution is made, but it should not be linked directly to copyright as if attribution is codified by law. Can someone please add all those fancy Wikipedia labels to this page to avoid confusion until the page is corrected by more knowledgable people. --Eglue (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)eglue