Platform: Website Browser: Firefox URLs (aka web addresses) of any relevant observations or pages: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/171764093 Screenshots of what you are seeing: [Screen Shot 2023-07-08 at 1.27.20 PM] Description of problem: Step 1: Go to a research grade observation p…

[image] insectobserver123: it should say “will only be be shared with data repositories that respect license choices.” or “will not be shared with data repositories that do not respect license choices.” i don’t think your suggestions really clarify the situation. the first is factually wrong.…

Correct, this isn’t a bug , it’s text that was intentionally put there and was vetted by GBIF before it was added to the site. Also, photo license (or lack thereof) does not affect whether an observation will be shared wth GBIF and similar databases - it’s the observation license that matters.

This is exactly the issue, the current wording actually tells the user that the observation will only be shared with those license repositories that do not respect licenses. If the intent is to warn that some repositories ignore license requirements that is not stated in any clear way @tiwane

When I see the word ‘vetted’, it sounds to me like lawyers may have been involved in the exact phrasing. Being somewhat confusing but also unambiguously literally true might jive with that. If thats the case it may not be as easy as simply changing it to a clearer (but perhaps less precise) phrasing…

I think it’s even more confusing than that too. I get the intent that a third party that respects copyright won’t use the copyrighted images (or iNat won’t share them), but it needs to cover the following points: are they shared with third parties that do not respect copyright? If no, then the s…

[image] headsoup: I get the intent that a third party that respects copyright won’t use the copyrighted images As Tony says above, the text isn’t saying that the images in the observation aren’t licensed for re-use. It’s saying that the data in the observation isn’t licensed for re-use: the d…

[image] adamjroberts: As Tony says above, the text isn’t saying that the images in the observation aren’t licensed for re-use. But aren’t the images what the user can set copyright status on? Specifically, in your account settings you have license options for observations and photos separate…

It would be better to say something like “This observation could be shared with data repositories, increasing its usefulness to science, if the licence were changed to one more suitable. For guidance on changing the licence, see [URL]”.

[image] adamjroberts: It would just be disregarding the observer’s preference: a preference with no legal force behind it. in this thread, i don’t want to go off on too much of a tangent discussing the merits of copyright on iNat observations. there are other threads that go over this, and he…

Copyrighted obs include text saying they will not be shared with data repositories that respect licenses, this cannot be correct

General

Topic		Replies	Views
All rights reserved observations General	28	3226	February 21, 2021
Does copyright law allow you to restrict use of your observations—the data, this is, not the photos? General question	32	3133	July 11, 2023
Licensing problem for paper using iNat data General question	60	3059	January 17, 2023
Questions re. use of iNaturalist data in research: GBIF exports, licenses of observations General question	14	3322	March 26, 2021
Improve viewing & editing copyright information on observations Feature Requests web	32	3530	June 4, 2025

Copyrighted obs include text saying they will not be shared with data repositories that respect licenses, this cannot be correct

Related topics