Umm, it would help one of the major arguments of this site if you gave attribution to the source for this comic ...

How would it help one of the 'major arguments'? And which one?

This site is against 'monopoly', not pro 'monopoly enforced attribution'. The idea that copyright holders should be able to compel those who make copies to attribute them is Lessig's. There's no natural right to it.

There is a natural right to know whether John Bennett is claiming this comic as his own, or wether he copied it. I am unable to read the itty bitty print with the author's name. It could be John. If not, it verges on plagiarism.

The natural right in this case is against falsehood, i.e. against misattribution.

Is JB implicitly claiming this as his work? or is he simply republishing it?

The latter would seem to be the conclusion for people familiar with the way articles are posted on this site, since he makes no statement that would conflict with the 'itty bitty print'.

You've raised the possibility of ambiguity through lack of clarity as to the work's authorship especially for unfamiliar visitors to this site, that perhaps through context JB is implicitly posting work of his authorship, especially given the byline "by John T. Bennett".

So, it could be argued that it would be helpful to readers if the authorship of the comic was clarified, or that it was clear that JB wasn't making a claim of authorship (even by implication).

There's a subtle difference between a legal obligation to give attribution (on pain of copyright infringement) and the natural right against misattribution (implicitly or explicitly).

Crosbie:

You made my head spin. If you are saying that John could have been more explicit in attributing the source of the cartoon, I agree. Such attribution might not be necessary if the cartoon had been something where nearly everyone knows the author - like Peanuts or Garfield (I absolutely know that the author of those was not a "John Bennett"). As it is, for all I know John was the author. I am unfamiliar with the cartoon posted and I am unsure of whether "Toles" (assuming I am reading that correctly) is the name of the strip or the author. Of course, "Toles" could be a pseudonym for John Bennett.

Regardless, clarity would be appreciated.

Did JB set out to deceive? No apparent evidence.

Would an idiot in a hurry think the cartoons were authored by JB - being attributed as the author of the post? Possibly.

Are you a sensible person in a hurry who has been confused, or are you only concerned for those that may go away thinking JB is the cartoonist?

However, these issues whilst important are mundane compared to the more interesting question you've not yet answered: "How would it help one of the 'major arguments'? And which one?"

Uh, guys ... it says "copyright 2009 The Washington Post" on the fricking cartoon.

Suzzle, John T Bennett may well have a pen name of 'Toles' and may have submitted this to the Washington Post (adding for them their declaration to be the holder of the transferable monopoly in the work). I doubt he is the author of the work, but the possibility that a lack of clarification could imply that he is, is at least plausible.

So, whilst I'm accommodating the possibility, I'm trying to establish what 'major argument of this site would be helped by giving attribution to the source of this comic'. Whether 'source' is author or publisher isn't clear, but no doubt that and what the mysterious 'major argument' is will soon be made clear...

Due to the notice embedded in the image, as soon as it was posted it was automatically credited to the Washington Post. So the question of its attribution seems moot.

Suzzle, every post is a statement, and a statement that may deceive.

A copyright notice indicates the holder of the copyright, it says nothing about the authorship of the work.

This is a graphic cartoon apparently posted by JB.

Usually, what posters of articles on this site do is post works of their own authorship. If it is not clear that the person identified as having posted the article is quoting/enclosing another author's work then it is plausible that a reader may believe the graphic is the work of the poster. Compare if JB had posted text written by another - without indicating he hadn't authored it.

Misattribution can occur even if it is not explicit, e.g. by implication through context.

Suzzle:

You assumed something...too many people do. Questioning things is one of the purposes of this site.

This is insane. People are now not only insulting me, but accusing other people of lying?

The fact is that the cartoon is quite clearly attributed to the Washington Post.

Suzzle:

Attributed to "The Washington Post," but that is a publication and not an author. As noted again, and again, and again, John Bennett could have been the author and his cartoon was published in the Post. The original question remains. Did John Bennett create the cartoon or did someone else? Indeed, it is possible that the Post was not even the first place where the cartoon was published - though that is likely irrelevant.

Attributed to the Washington Post, yes. Moreover, copyright assigned to them. So it is very unlikely that it was published elsewhere first.

P.S. If you have nothing nice to say about me, please leave me alone.

What definition are you using for 'attribution' Suzzle?

1) The obeisance/reverence/invocation of the current copyright holder to a work.

2) The acknowledgement/identification/crediting/recognition of the author of a work.

The attribution of a source being quoted. In this case, the Washington Post. Whether that source is direct or indirect being immaterial.

Suzzle, attribution is a matter concerning the of authorship of a work, not the source or provenance of its copies. The latter is a distinct concern, typically of interest to copyright lawyers, copyright holders, and would be licensees.

It appears your understanding of 'attribution' has become polluted by copyright.

That isn't to say it isn't sometimes useful for an author to cite their sources, the publications in which the material they have referred to or quoted was found, but that's citation, not attribution.

That quoted works have sources goes without saying. The deceit of plagiarism or misattribution is not a matter of misleading readers as to which publication material was copied from, but a matter of misleading readers as to a work's authorship.

I thought I'd made myself clear earlier, when I said "If you have nothing nice to say about me, please leave me alone."

Apparently not.

My understanding has become "polluted" by nothing. Attributing to the Washington Post a work for hire that the Washington Post commissioned does not seem inappropriate.

As for your thinly-veiled accusations of plagiarism: up yours.

Now please go away.