This is similar to questions that have been raised in the past:
- https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-deal-with-observations-of-fish-on-fish-markets/397
- https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/wild-not-wild-tags-in-quality-assessment-in-local-markets-local-use/3945
There is a lot of disagreement over the subject, but as someone working in the conservation field in an area with heavy poaching, my own opinion is that if the organism is known to be from nearby and that it was recently taken from the wild (eg, for sale in a market vs in a pot at someone’s house, even if they’re originally from the same area in either case) it should be marked as “wild”, but a note should be included in the description that it was recently taken or poached.
As an aside, with the Anaconda observation, it’s worth noting that they’re found in waterways in grasslands as well (especially in Bolivia and Brazil) and that they will sometimes come up into areas that may have been cleared near residences and such. I’m not saying that this is the case with this observation, but the presence of grass in-and-of itself is not an indicator of captivity for Anacondas.
In the case if this person’s other observations, particularly of the primates, the coati, and the Mealy Parrot I’d mark them as “captive”. The behavior seen and location (especially of the Spider Monkey, White-bellied Spider Monkey, and Wooly Monkey) are indicative of a lot of time spent in captivity, not a recent capture. The Large Headed Capuchin could be either, I’ve often seen wild ones in similar settings as they come in to raid for food, but in the context of the location and the other observations it’s likely also captive.
I think that the specific example you raise with this user highlights the need for context in making a decision whether to mark as “captive” or “wild”, but context is often difficult to establish from just a single photo.