Hilariously, I&#x27;m pretty sure that this article is violating the license! This person&#x27;s photos are licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;creativecommons.org&#x2F;licenses&#x2F;by-sa&#x2F;2.0&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;creativecommons.org&#x2F;licenses&#x2F;by-sa&#x2F;2.0&#x2F;</a>). Among its terms are &quot;ou must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.&quot;<p>Maybe I missed it but I did not see any link to the license or indication of whether changes were made. Simply crediting the copyright owner is not sufficient to satisfy the terms of the license. Also, with CC &lt; 4.0 you need to include the work&#x27;s title.<p>The Trump site is doing exactly the same thing, not linking to the license