I agree. iNaturalist even has an easy-to-find guide on citing content from a 2-second google search.
2 Likes
Be aware that if you’ve chosen one of the Creative Commons licenses (or public domain), you’ve already given your consent to use your images, subject to different conditions. If you want to retain the right to grant consent over individual uses of your images, you shouldn’t be using a license at all, but using “All rights reserved”.
That’s the whole point of Creative Commons licenses, and it is explicit in the text of the licenses:
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose …
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Similarly, anyone who picked a license that doesn’t include “Attribution” has agreed in advance that you can use their work without crediting them.
6 Likes
Thank you for explaining the subject so eloquently. As a long-time admirer and casual user of iNaturalist (iNat), I appreciate your insights. Regarding my own content, I’ve taken a lenient approach to copyright. Although I’ve marked my photos as ‘All rights reserved,’ I’ve only uploaded a handful, and they’re nothing remarkable. I’ve included a screenshot for reference.
While I’ve taken this precaution, I’m not concerned about receiving credit for any of my very ordinary standard Photos. In fact, I’d be delighted if someone were to use my ordinary photos for a good cause. On the other hand, I don’t want credit (and thus involve my name) after using content for purposes I may not approve of. My earlier comment wasn’t specifically about photos being used in iNat, but rather about the broader issue of using content on YouTube without permission/consent. In my experience, when YouTube notifies me that someone has used my content or when I somehow notice that otherwise, I review the context to ensure it’s not being used for malicious/mere personal interest purposes. If the use seems legitimate/For good purposes etc, I take no action. However, in most cases, I’ve found that my content is being used for personal gain only. In such instances, I report the copyright infringement to YouTube, and they take necessary action to remove the content. I avoid engaging with the offending channels, as commenting can inadvertently promote their videos.
The primary reason I’ve opted for ‘All rights reserved’ on iNaturalist is to enable myself to report any unauthorized use of my content to YouTube/Other authorities. This allows for a formal review and potential removal of the infringing video, rather than engaging in potentially unproductive discussions with the channel owner.
Please find a relevant screenshot attached, which may be helpful in illustrating the point.
Contents in question, have either been deleted by the uploader themselves on getting notice from YouTube or have been removed by YouTube Authorities, after verification, wherever the uploaders have not deleted by themselves.
2 Likes
The Observation Copyright (in your first screenshot) controls whether or not the data can go to GBIF. You have to click on the individual photos to see the Picture Copyright.
1 Like
Thank you for sharing the information. However, I must confess that I’m not overly concerned about the usage of the most ordinary photos I’ve uploaded to iNaturalist. In fact, I’d be delighted and feel honored if they could be utilized for worthwhile purposes by anyone.
It was just to share my concerns regarding platforms that exploit others’ content for financial gain. It’s disheartening to see creators’ passion and dedication being used to sell merchandise, rather than supporting the creators’ original intentions. What troubles me is that these platforms often profit from the passion and dedication of creators, such as wildlife conservationists who may have sacrificed their luxurious livelihoods for the same. Instead of supporting the creators’ efforts, these platforms use their content to sell merchandise and further their own business interests, which could have otherwise contributed to the conservation of nature.
I apologize for potentially steering the conversation off course and providing some irrelevant details. I’ll strive to refocus on the original topic and provide more pertinent insights moving forward.
2 Likes
If your photo is licensed CC BY-NC this means it cannot be used on Commercial sites which would include YouTube, therefore there should be no inaturalist photos with this license anywhere on YouTube. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en
You can change the license for each photo you post, by the way.
I don’t think this statement is true. Many Youtube videos are not monetized (ie, the creator/poster makes no money from them). It would be fine to use a CC-BY-NC photo appropriately in these.
The NC doesn’t ban use on
which would include nearly every major site on the internet (which make money via ads or whatever), all journalism, etc. The NC proscribes “commercial purposes — A commercial use is one primarily intended for commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” which is very different.
I disagree because YouTube makes money. Construction on YouTube is to make money for YouTube therefore it’s commercial use.
Non-commercial sites are like non-profit educational sites - I authorize Educators to use my pics there. Mostly individuals in the actual classroom, as well.
1 Like
Maybe you are correct, this makes it about as clear as mud but I still think YouTube makes money https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation
I also have to disagree. The entire reason Wikipedia won’t accept NC licenses is for precisely the reason you describe, that it precludes use on nearly every major site on the internet, all journalism, etc. NC is a lot more restrictive than most people realize, which is why I’ve never used it myself.
It seems like Clint’s Reptiles has not responded or fixed the issue. Is that correct? Should we try other channels of communication? It looks like your can email them at clintsreptiles@gmail.com.