I can't speak for anyone else, but I want to put my personal viewpoint forward. If I answer something on a forum, or otherwise share my work online. Usually t

I can't speak for anyone else, but I want to put my personal viewpoint forward. If I answer something on a forum, or otherwise share my work online. Usually the social contract is: this is work someone did, in a context, with attribution. Attribution and link to the context is implied. If it's a toy example or teaches a pattern like how to use an interface it's usually implied that the example is too obvious to someone who is skilled in that art (using the interface) and is thus of insufficient novelty to qualify for copyright coverage. However the utility of that work as educational material, and promotional material for the creator, is worthy of the social contract of social credit / attribution. After thinking it over, I'm leaning towards this stance. Does the entity understand the work enough to make an assessment of the following: 1) Are they proficient in the art (skill) at hand? 2) Do they rate the results as sufficiently unique to qualify for copyright rather than obvious to a skilled practicer in that field? 3) Are they an entity which is legally allowed to claim copyright? - If all three are yes, then MAYBE they can claim copyright for the results. As far as the forums and places with the examples; they should remain in the context they were created. Usually publicly accessible examples open to all without charge.