from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. The act of attributing, especially the act of establishing a particular person as the creator of a work of art.
- n. Something, such as a quality or characteristic, that is related to a particular possessor; an attribute.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. The act of attributing something.
- n. An explicit or formal acknowledgment of ownership or authorship.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- n. The act of attributing or ascribing, as a quality, character, or function, to a thing or person, an effect to a cause.
- n. That which is ascribed or attributed.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. The act of attributing, in any sense; ascription.
- n. That which is ascribed; attribute.
- n. Authority or function granted, as to a ruler, minister, or court.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. assigning some quality or character to a person or thing
- n. assigning to a cause or source
Sobran seems to be unaware that lists of parallels such as he provides have long been looked at very skeptically in attribution studies, since writers in any era consciously or unconsciously influence each other and draw on common sources.
However, the issue of copying recipes without attribution is one that, sooner or later, all food writers must confront.
Wikipedia has a good page on the Shakespeare Apocrypha, “a group of plays that have sometimes been attributed to William Shakespeare, but whose attribution is questionable for various reasons”. (thx, jeffrey & nick) posted by Deron Bauman in art, history, international, language, literature, science | * | comment
Now the paragraph I just wrote, quoting a couple bits of the ReadWriteWeb post with attribution, is an example of fair use.
Like any science, the attribution is done by creating hypotheses about possible effects of each forcing, and then testing those hypotheses.
Consequently, the author ` s derivative right is to accuracy in attribution (whether explicit or implicit), not to attribution per se.
As a result, [t] he right to copy creative works, with or without attribution, is the domain of copyright, not of trademark or unfair competition.
That particular set of aphorisms have been attributed to Lincoln, but the attribution is erroneous.
This attribution has emotional origins, because logically, your attribution is far from the only possible motive for the regulation.
You did not come to this attribution from a process of pure logic.
Wordnik is becoming a not-for-profit! Read our announcement here.