I hope you’re doing well. I recently came across numerous observations on iNaturalist that appear to contain images sourced from the internet. To verify, I used tools like Google Images and TinEye, which confirmed that many of these photos were taken from external websites rather than being original observations. I understand that reviewing such flagsd might seem unnecessary at times, but I believe intellectual property is a delicate matter. iNaturalist is not only a nature observation platform but also a vast database containing billions of images, making data integrity crucial.
When I flagged these cases, I received warnings stating that I might be unnecessarily burdening curators. I sincerely apologize if my flaggings have caused any inconvenience—I deeply respect the work of curators and staff. However, due to the reactions I received, I hesitated to flag many other cases that I strongly suspect are sourced from the internet. As a result, I’ve refrained from flagging them, even though I have come across numerous images from stock photo websites being uploaded as if they were like original observations. (Some can only be detected by reverse search unfortunately, maybe an engine implemented to the uploading section?)
Beyond iNaturalist’s own guidelines, I believe this issue also raises concerns related to international intellectual property rights, which are also mentioned in the platform’s rules. Using copyrighted images without proper attribution or permission could pose legal and ethical challenges, potentially affecting the credibility of the platform.
Could you please clarify the best way to handle such cases? I truly want to contribute in a meaningful way while ensuring that I do not add unnecessary workload to the moderation process. At times, the responses I’ve received have been discouraging, but my only goal is to help maintain the quality and accuracy of observations. I appreciate your time and all the work you do to keep iNaturalist a valuable resource. I love being here.
Best regards
Mehmet (Mr.)
Note: Due to English is not my native language, if some of my words sounds like offensive or unkind, please excuse me.
If you are definitely sure that something is copyright infringement (ie, you find the exact same photo posted somewhere else previously), I think it’s fine to flag directly for copyright. I would also suggest leaving a polite comment with the source and explaining the issue. Many are from new users that don’t know that they should be uploading their own photos (as obvious as that may seem to other users).
I will add - it doesn’t have to be legally copyright infringement to flag for this, the flag also notes “or was created by someone other than the observer and lacks attribution” - so flagging a public domain pic taken from Wikipedia is also fine.
If there’s a situation where it looks like something might be infringing but someone isn’t sure, it’s probably best to ask the observer in a comment. There are many scenarios in which someone could upload something that looks like a copyrighted pic (but isn’t and is actually ok).
This has been discussed previously in copyright threads, but if someone has selected one of the least restrictive copyrights, stock photo websites can scrape and take these images and thus they may appear to be “taken” from the stock sites when in fact the inverse is true.
In short, it might be worth adding the step of checking the copyrights to “assume good intent” before flagging and if a less restrictive copyright is in place, perhaps assuming the photo has been scraped from iNaturalist?
Speaking as a curator - I, for one, appreciate all the flags you have done! You’ve helped to clean up so many inappropriate images and copyright issues, and made the site a better place by your efforts. I’m sorry you’ve received negative responses to your contributions.
As to your questions -
Any images that you can find an internet source for, go ahead and put a copyright flag on it. Copyright infringement flags don’t require any curator action at all, so nobody will get upset. (Be aware though that sometimes images get taken from iNat and reposted elsewhere, and there are a few iNatters who also supply their own images to stock photo sites. So it’s worth looking closely if the user seems to be active + in good standing otherwise).
Sometimes someone uploads a lot of very suspicious photos that I cannot find sources for, yet feel almost certain they are stolen - I submit a flag once in a while for those asking for someone else to take a look, but it’s probably best to not do that too often.
Just to clarify some of the feedback I gave you, sometimes I’ve seen you (and others, including myself) flag an image as copyright infringement when I don’t think it’s necessarily infringing on someone’s copyright. I’m not a lawyer, but here are two different situations:
Sometimes people will post a photo that includes an image that someone else took or made and they’ll post it to iNaturalist. Let’s say I posted this photo to iNat and IDed it as a kingfisher:
(Hong Kong Wetland Park has the best bathroom interpretive signs ever, btw)
I’m not claiming that the bird image that’s on the sign was created by me. I just took a photo of a sign that happened to include an image made by someone and I think we can just ID that observation as Homo sapiens and move on. I don’t think the copyright infringement flag is suited for that situation because my photograph of the sign is what’s relevant to the attributon. That being said, I’ve certainly used it for these situations in the past.
What I think the copyright infringement flag is best used for is when someone is passing off another person’s image/sound as their own. Usually that happens when someone finds a photo online and uploads it directly to iNat. For example, if someone took my photo from Flickr and posted it as their own:
I am one of the curators who asked you not to flag so many things because of the workload it creates, this is because you were flagging large numbers of human images just because they were human, even if they didn’t break any rules.
Photos taken from the internet are a different matter entirely, they are against the rules, damage data accuracy, and often violate the legal rights of others (copyright), so nothing I said to you should be interpreted to discourage you from flagging photos taken from elsewhere, I was just saying that being human isn’t grounds for a flag unless the image also breaks rules
In short, don’t flag every human observation, but do flag every rule-breaking image, including images that are taken from other websites, these are a real problem and can cause pretty major data accuracy issues.
I just want to support @graysquirrel’s viewpoint here. iNat relies on users uploading their own photos of their genuine observations of nature. It’s easy to upload internet-sourced images and not as easy to detect them.
It is really helpful when people like @salix-babylonica find and flag images that appear to be copyright violations, and this should be as easy as possible. So long as you have a genuine reason (e.g. a reverse image search) to think an image is not the user’s own, please do flag it. As mentioned above, this doesn’t create extra work for curators. And if you make an occasional mistake, it’s not very difficult for an observer to add a comment explaining why the image is actually acceptable.
Curators can see all the flags that are added, and, of course, if you flag a lot of images, then a curator may notice that. But the person who suggested that these flags create a burden for curators was mistaken, and you do not need to stop flagging problem images. Make sure to select “Copyright Infringement” for the type of flag, as other flags (e.g. “Offensive / Inappropriate”) do require curators to review them and take action.
Ah… this does explain the confusion. There is no need to flag images of humans (unless they’re offensive in some way). Just add an ID of Homo sapiens and move on.
Only do this if you are sure that it is infringement, if unsure flag as “other” becasue you want a curator to see it then, rather than automatically getting rid of the image.
No, what creates a burden is flagging hundreds of images that don’t break the rules just because they are human, this is the only activity I asked them to stop. Every rule breaking image should be flagged whether there are 2 or 2,000 of them
I’m also not a lawyer, but I believe the extent of any right to take a photo that includes a work copyrighted by another person is generally referred to a Freedom of Panorama, and laws on this differ quite a bit around the world. It might be instructive for iNat users to read about how this is handled in their own jurisdiction and in the United States, where iNat is based.
While usually I assume good intent, I have usually come across this on observations made by new users/those with few observations, it is usually obvious that the image is not theirs, by looking at their other observations and comparing quality, the metadata of the picture in question and compare it to more plausible observations. And once deemed suspicious a reverse image search will confirm. Once confirmed by a reverse image search good intent is not required as if the image first appeared online before the observation observed date it is highly unlikely the image was sourced the other way around.
I have yet to come across a case of a user with more than 100 obs uploading a picture that is not theirs (or those ones are smarter about it and it is less obvious).
Some new users are also not aware that uploading someone elses pictures are not allowed and are finding an image of what they think they saw but couldn’t photograph so it is nice to leave them a note explaining how iNat works.
I am so sorry not to quite follow what this sentence means.
Or this one. Sorry!
BUT the good intent recommendation was for while one reviews the copyright to see if the Observation in question happens to be one with a less restrictive copyright.
Even after that one would still need to use one’s best judgment, which is why I included the very important word “perhaps”, as I do not believe there are any hard cut truths.
So one would, assuming good intent, check the copyright BEFORE flagging to consider if perhaps a photo falls into this category.
I am not saying any specific photo, much less all, do, just that this was definitely discussed in previous discussions and could create scenarios wherein photos on iNat would also appear on bulk photo websites though no actual misbehavior took place.
(I assume this and following is advice for @salix-babylonica as I have no specific experience with this.)
Sorry I did not mean to reply to you directly, only quote a certain portion.
I was trying to say that while I usually assume the best from people, I do not hesitate to flag suspicious images as it is usually very obvious due to reasons outlined in my previous reply.
Reverse image search engines will often tell you when an image was uploaded onto another site/it’s first appearence on the internet. In most cases if the suspicious observations “observed on” date is post the date the image was found elsewhere online it is most likely not the observers original photograph. (there are cases where people are uploading their own observations from flickr or similar sites, but this is usually obvious)
I see I am sorry I misinterpreted that. I hope the comments I have made here prove useful to someone else who might encounter this.
Yep!
sorry to reply to this resolved thread, I hope the miscommunications are sorted
The copyright issue is of course very important but in my opinion there’s an even bigger problem with using photos that were taken from the internet or other sources. One of the great things about iNaturalist is that the observations are vouchered. A researcher wanting to use the data can check for himself whether the ID is correct by looking at the photo (or listening to the recording). If the photo or recording wasn’t taken at the time and place reported for the observation, it can’t be a voucher for that record – even if the observer actually did take the photo himself (at a different time and place) so copyright doesn’t come into it. Please do flag copyright violations and any other problem that makes the observation not vouchered.
Maybe once. When I flagged for copyright. There was pushback, that iNatter IS the original photographer.
I reverse image search when the photo looks unlikely to be a ‘vouchered experience of that iNatter’. If in doubt, I flag for copyright.
I don’t know if its an option already. Is there an option to categorize a reasoning for flagging as “Duplication” or “Copyrighted Content of Internet Source”? Im not sure how to word it but hopefully you understand ehat Im trying to say.
Maybe someone more familiar with the forumns knows if theres been a discussion on this or a suggestion of similiar concerns in the suggestions forumn.
