Your first image is CC3.0 and requires way heavier attribution (you need to specify the author of the image and a little more, otherwise you are liable), specific to the first image it is actually different then some CC3.0 and by that I mean the author/copyright holder added in extra information stating the requirements for the attribution.
The second image I was unable to find the license,
third image was CC0 so you are completely fine there,
4rth image is CC3.0 and requires heavier attribution
The video I am not certain about specifically but it uses SYL (standard youtube license) and isn't CC0, though they could make it so you cannot embed videos, I would still be leary about embedding videos that you aren't CC0 or that you don't have explicit permission to use.
Post was good by the way!
First, thank you for the specific feedback. I imagine it's a lot of extra work for you beyond the bot, but it really helped me improve the article. I was only mildly aware of the different levels of CC and figured a google search with 'labelled for reuse' was sufficient.
I've updated my attributions where possible and have removed the embedded images and youtube video where not possible. I don't think it terribly affects the article quality in this case.
The video was probably fine and the attribution is good now.
Its okay! I wasn't really aware of the differences between the different CC licenses until recently and still I am learning. I liked your post btw, I don't want you to feel like I am picking on you or anything, I swear I do this to a few people.
If you want to use youtube video embeds, you can search youtube for CC0 videos (there is a way to do it) and a lot of content creators will likely say sure for you to put it in (its even more lovely when they have a website that answers that specific question, however if something says NC (Non-Commercial) I would avoid it as steemit could, by some, be considered commercial)
Anyways the attribution looks good.
I'm glad you liked the post, and I stay away from NC for the same reasons. I don't think you're picking on me. ;)
However, my first reaction when I saw only the bot post was to be a little irked. Both the name of the bot itself and something about the text made it feel a little like getting hit with a comment from cheetah.
I'm trying to think of suggestion for rewording it so it comes off more as 'We'd like to help you improve your articles' and less as a policing-bot type of thing. Perhaps something like: