I assume that my research-grade data eventually end up on GBIF. Which is also confirmed [image] However, when I filter through occurrence data on GBIF the filters show that only CC-BY-NC is included. [image] Is this a glitch on GBIF side, or is only CC-BY-NC data uploaded?

Yeah, that’s right—thanks to a ‘hot-fix’ by our own @nvolik! So, for instance, if you only CC0 records from iNat and eBird, you can combine datasets and filter by licence: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/search?dataset_key=50c9509d-22c7-4a22-a47d-8c48425ef4a7&dataset_key=4fa7b334-ce0d-4e88-aaae-2e…

Wouter: some very practical implications on the use of NC as a default (in case the link hasn’t been already shared: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_iNaturalist/Default_license ). Kimpel (2013), linked from that page, is an excellent read.

And very much agree that the prevalence of NC is not an explicit choice of the majority of users, but the effect of the default at scale.

Thanks very much @radrat ! I would like to add one more resource while we’re at it, the 2011 paper by Hagedorn et al., “Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the re-use of biodiversity information”, explaining that NonCommercial is not what most people think it…

I can’t find a working link to the Kimpel paper, by the way :( [edit] Found a copy on http://weblessons.us/docs/iRights_CC-NC_Guide_English.pdf

[image] radrat: And very much agree that the prevalence of NC is not an explicit choice of the majority of users For me it started out as an explicit choice, but I removed it as soon as it became apparent that it was unknowingly restricting non-commercial use right along with commercial use.

This is true, the CC-BY-SA license is not compatible with the CC BY-NC license or CC BY-ND licenses. The CC-BY-SA license is the only license that effectively guarantees that your work will always remain free. If I understand correctly, they are excluding the observations with the CC-BY-SA license…

Why doesn’t GBIF just respect the individual licenses? This is clearly going against the spirit of the original licensors. Even if it is legal, alienating or angering original copyright holders is never a good idea. And this is the sort of thing that irritates me a lot. Especially when people use t…

In case you missed the response, they’re actively working on fixing it: [image] kcopas: Hi, all—thanks for your patience while we investigated the issue and possible approaches for addressing it. We intend to implement record-level licensing for all mixed datasets (like iNat) that contain reco…

I do respect your choice for CC BY-SA. Licenses are a personal choice and iNaturalist is great for supporting this personal choice. Having said that, I disagree with your encouragement for using CC BY-SA. Since CC-BY-SA also hinders scientific re-use, which you acknowledge by mentioning that CC-BY-…

iNaturalist data on GBIF shows only CC BY-NC (excluding CC0 and CC BY)

General

cazort February 18, 2020, 12:01am 24

Is it correct for me to assume that you are excluding all records that use CC BY-SA and CC BY-ND then?

Topic		Replies	Views
Missing or "wrong" license for GBIF General	22	562	July 6, 2024
Does copyright law allow you to restrict use of your observations—the data, this is, not the photos? General question	32	3220	July 11, 2023
Questions re. use of iNaturalist data in research: GBIF exports, licenses of observations General question	14	3340	March 26, 2021
Licensing problem for paper using iNat data General question	60	3124	January 17, 2023
All rights reserved observations General	28	3245	February 21, 2021

iNaturalist data on GBIF shows only CC BY-NC (excluding CC0 and CC BY)

Related topics