Creative Commons Attribution on Images

I just posted a picture to Brian Fiete's page. The picture was taken from a Flickr account and is not watermarked. The picture is here  http://www.flickr.com/photos/jontintinjordan/2984469173/ and licensed under this license  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en 
 
I added both links, the owner of the Flickr account's name and a link to the license as a comment. I then added it to the caption. Is that the correct way of handling such images or is there a better place to put an attribution? Or should I have not uploaded the picture at all? I was thinking of adding other pictures from that account to their respective pages and wanted to make sure I understood the policy correctly. I did a search, so sorry if this was covered somewhere and I missed it. 
 
Edit: Also, I did not seek permission from the Flickr account's owner. It was my understanding that because the Creative Common's license allowed sharing/distribution as long as proper attribution was given, no permission was needed (the license was automatically granting permission to repost and share the image).

If in doubt, contact the image's author and ask if you've attributed him appropriately. It looks fine to me, but I would refer to the license by name as well: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

I sent the Flickr user a message about it and edited my comment to the picture as well as the caption to include the name of the license.
 
I guess I feel like I shouldn't ask permission for this kind of use. Like I said, that is what the license is for.  
 
I am reminded of this editorial by Nina Paley in which she complains about those who ask if they may use or share her movie (registered under a Creative Commons license). Her point is that asking permission is a waste of her time because permission has already been granted.  http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/04/20/yes-means-yes/ 

Then again, you have people who have licensed their works under a Creative Common's license without understanding the implications (like that guy who's church pictures were used in an ad campaign 'without his permission' because the license he had used allowed it). 
 
For something like this (reusing the picture to add to a wiki), which is what the license seems intended for, I guess you could compromise. Add the picture(s) anyway, but still send off a message. If he doesn't get back, stick with the license and attribute as best you can. If he ever requests to have it taken down or for the attribution to be change, then comply. That way you don't run into Nina Paley's problem where people won't reuse her works without her explicit permission (which means she has to personally grant every small reuse of work that was already granted with the license with an email).