with each attribution, as we do with academic citations, we want to be sure we are giving appropriate thanks to the author who has so generously made their works available for our use/re-purposing. the following should help you to self-assess the completeness of your attribution.

structure & access requirements

title - what is the name of the material?

if a title was provided for the material, include it. sometimes a title is not provided; in that case, don't worry about it.

author - who owns the material?

name the author or authors of the material in question. sometimes, the licensor may want you to give credit to some other entity, like a company or pseudonym. in rare cases, the licensor may not want to be attributed at all. in all of these cases, just do what they request.

source - where can i find it?

since you somehow accessed the material, you know where to find it. provide the source of the material so others can, too. since we live in the age of the internet, this is usually a url or hyperlink where the material resides.

license - how can i use it?

you are obviously using the material for free thanks to the cc license, so make note of it. don't just say the material is creative commons, because that says nothing about how the material can actually be used. remember that there are six different cc licenses; which one is the material under? name and provide a link to it, eg. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ for cc by.

→ if the licensor included a license notice with more information, include that as well.

this wiki page "best practices for attribution" by cameron parkins, is used (in part) under cc by 4.0

examples

here is a photo.   doodle on napkin   following are some examples of how people might attribute it.

this is an ideal attribution

doodle on napkin

"napkin doodle" by lisaon is licensed under cc by 4.0

because

title? "napkin doodle"
author? "lisaon " - linked to his profile page
source? "napkin doodle" - linked to original flickr page
license? "cc by 4.0" - linked to license deed

this is an ok attribution

doodle on napkin

photo by lisaon / cc by

because

title? title is not noted (it should be) but at least the source is linked.
author? "lisaon"
source? "photo" - linked to original flickr page
license? "cc by" - linked to license deed

this is an incorrect attribution

doodle on napkin

photo: creative commons

because

title? title is not noted.
author? creative commons is not the author of this photo.
source? no link to original photo.
license? there is no mention of the license, much less a link to the license. "creative commons" is an organization.

this is a good attribution for material you modified slightly

rotated napkin doodle

"napkin doodle" by lisaon, used under cc by 4.0/ rotated and framed from original

because

title, author, source, and license are all noted
modification? "rotated from original"

this is a good attribution for material from which you created a derivative work

sketch of napkin doodle

this work, "sketchideas", is a derivative of "napkin doodle" by lisaon, used under cc by 4.0.
"sketchideas" is licensed under cc by 4.0 by lisaon.

because

original title, author, source, and license are all noted
derivative? "this work, "sketchideas", is a derivative of..."
new author of the derivative work is also noted

note: if you're at a point where you are licensing derivative works, go to marking your work with a cc license.

this wiki page "best practices for attribution" by cameron parkins, is used (in part) under cc by 4.0. images and attributions replaced from original.