iNaturalist and Wikipedia

I do not ever use these licenses, and furthermore, I generally object to the use of any licenses with NC clauses, because they are misleading and legally problematic for a long list of reasons. @bouteloua has already linked to the thread where I explain why (thanks much for linking to it!), but here’s the direct link in case you want to hear my full reasoning it is this thread:

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/a-case-for-changing-the-default-license-to-not-include-a-nc-clause/18690

This is an issue I feel pretty strongly about. Like if I were to think of any one issue I would prioritize to change about iNaturalist, it would be this one. One of the reasons I feel so strongly is that the status quo seems extreme, i.e. it’s not just that we allow users to choose these licenses, they are the default license, and the signup process uses language that strongly recommends using them in a way that ignores their problems.

At a minimum, I would want the language surrounding the licenses around signup changed. I would strongly prefer them not being the default license.

If I were to have exactly what I want on the issue, it would be to remove the option of any of the NC licenses on the site. I personally don’t like these licenses being used anywhere.

I also dislike ND licenses; they prevent really basic stuff like cropping photos or changing lighting, which makes them have limited usefulness for scientific and educational purposes. If I were running things I would leave only public domain, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA; anyone who doesn’t want these could leave their images copyrighted.

2 Likes