I have NO problem with putting the artist's name in. In fact, I would feel bad not doing so.
The "not cropping" restriction is somewhat (not in your particular picture, but in some others). The big problems I have (not with yours, but again with others) are with conditions like "only display between 75% and 125% of original size" and "no flipping" or "no re-sizing" or "no coloring" or "no distorting" or "cannot cover with other graphic" and so on.
When I buy clipart, I expect to be able to use it as clipart - i.e., to do whatever I darn well please in terms of using the art in a product - color it, crop it, flip it, resize it, distort it, invert the colors, cover it with part of another graphic to get one larger, complete picture (i.e., "cut & paste" a human, orc, dwarf, and elf together to create a picture of an adventuring party), whatever... provided I give the original artist credit. But then, I'm kind of funny that way.
What I want as a publisher out of art I pay for is the ability to use (but not claim I created) the art in electronic and print forms (only) as though I had created it; i.e., I can't draw, that's why I hire you to do it, but I want the drawings to fit my imagination, not yours, since I am the one shelling out the cash. I don't want to buy it as a "work for hire" because I don't think that's right, either, but I do want to be able to make use of it in a manner of my choosing.
(Again, I'm particular about this on the theory that "if I pay for it, I should be able to control how it's used" - the same reason I don't like DVDs that don't let me fast-forward and so on).
I know that artists (rightly) also feel "if I create it, I should be able to control how it's used" - so that's why I try to work out in advance the parameters of use I want to have control of in exchange for my money. If I can't get enough control of how I use it, I won't give up my money... it's as simple as that - and we both go home unhappy, because he doesn't get paid and I don't get to use the good art. On the flip side, if the artist does agree to give me the control I want, and I give him the money he wants, we both go home happy... he's gotten paid and I've gotten the control I feel is necessary to justify exchanging money for it.
This is not a rip on anyone in particular; rather, it's an attempt to explain my thought process as a publisher. As a publisher, I feel the need to control the visual style of my products. That means that in order to control the visual style I feel that I need to have a certain amount of control over the art I use in my products in order to get the visual effects that I, as a publisher, want. This in turn tells me that I cannot justify paying for a piece of art if I cannot get the control I feel is necessary to produce a given visual style.
It's not so much a "control the artists" thing as it is a "please understand that if I'm going to pay you money, I need to be able to get the look I want, which may not be exactly the look you want."
Somewhat Flawed Analogy: I wouldn't pay someone to paint my car if they got to pick the color of the paint and trim and I had no say in it. If I'm going to pay you to paint my car, I want some say in the colors you use and the style you use. "Clipart" sets should be like the MAACO that offers a somewhat standardized paint job for a relatively inexpensive price - but I still get to pick the color. A "commission piece" is like hiring the local airbrush guy to give your car a special look you can't get elsewhere... and you pay more - but you still get to be pretty specific about colors and styles.
Am I making sense here? I think I've gotten too long-winded again (darn Mr. 3000 shows up again)
--The Sigil