Draft licensing and attribution captions for mixed-source images
A scenario prompt for a post using three images under three different license terms, covering what each license actually requires versus what's just polite, and the derivative-work catch in share-alike licenses.
Works with Claude / GPT390 uses★ 4.2
The prompt
media-image-licensing-attribution-captions
A blog post uses three images from three different sources:
1. An Unsplash photo (license doesn't require attribution, but we like crediting
photographers anyway).
2. A photo from Wikimedia Commons licensed CC BY-SA 4.0, which requires
attribution and a link to the license, and imposes share-alike terms on any
derivative.
3. An in-house photo we commissioned from a photographer, all rights reserved,
used under our own contract.
[replace with your own three images and their actual license terms]
We cropped image 2 to a square aspect ratio for our layout. Write:
1. An attribution caption for image 1 (optional but included) in a shorter,
lighter format than the required one.
2. A required attribution caption for image 2, including photographer/uploader
name, license name, and a link to the license text, formatted the way CC BY-SA
actually requires it.
3. A flag on the crop: does cropping image 2 count as a derivative work under
BY-SA's share-alike clause in a way that affects how we can license our own
page, or does simple cropping fall under normal fair-use editing? Tell me which,
and if there's any ambiguity, tell me to caption it as "cropped from original"
so the modification is disclosed either way.
4. Confirm no caption is legally required for image 3, just an internal usage note
for our own records (contract reference, usage rights expiration if any).
Three images, three different obligations, and the one that trips people up is the share-alike license: cropping or recoloring an image can trigger derivative-work terms that the original photo’s license didn’t have, so a small edit deserves the same attribution scrutiny as using the photo untouched.