OK sorry if this post has no sense but I’m doing my homework for this:
The above images are Free cultural works and it means you can use, share, edit them for whatever purpose. More info:
Quang Nguyen, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Ian Liao, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
564dude, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
mtan14, CC BY-SA 2.0, attraverso Wikimedia Commons
travel oriented, CC BY-SA 2.0, attraverso Wikimedia Commons
MiNe, CC BY 2.0, attraverso Wikimedia Commons
HenryDelMal, CC BY-SA 4.0, attraverso Wikimedia Commons
P.S. I could unintentionally forgot one attribution line but, since I’ve already put an hyperlink to each photo, like Wikipedia does, we can consider enough for your photo credits. If you are the author of that duck and you want to sue me because your credit is just a link on the image and not a brick in the above wall of text, I only have one thing to say to you. Quack.
This is a collection. This is not a derivative work. Assume my copyrights only on this exact phrase, and for the previous one, and for my “Quack”s and absolutely nothing else in this post content. See the sidebar for the license applying on these texts. The “Quacks”, instead, are released in CC0.
Note that I may not be able to claim copyright over my quacks, so see also the public domain mark.
The first and last ducks have apparently been modified in a way that can be considered creative, making them more rounded and applying weird color filters, but I actually don’t have any copyright on them either. First of all because it’s not a modification that exceeds the margin of originality, in my honest opinion. Secondly because I actually cheated and didn’t make any changes: the round thing and the color filter are just a CSS rule rendered by your browser web on your computer. I mean, the original file is not manipulated at all by me, but by you! So if there is creativity, are you the copyright owner of these derivative ducks? Uh? Uhm? (insert here plot twist music). Quack!