[duskwuff]

> 5% is the worst, where a photographer will have a open license like CC BY-NC

Doesn't even have to be -NC. Creative Commons licenses require reusers to provide comprehensive[1] attribution when they reuse images. Some older versions of the license, like 2.0, also terminated immediately and permanently upon any breach of the license; copyright trolls have abused this to sue reusers who forgot to include some part of the required attribution. CC 4.0 provides the reuser a 30-day grace period to cure a violation.

[1]: "the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material", as well as the title of the work prior to 4.0 -- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en#ref-appr...

[celestialcheese]

Yup. Haven't had this specific type of complaint levied against us, not looking forward to that payout.

And we do our best to comply with the letter of all the different open licenses, but it's hard as a small pub with a writing staff.