Except in the past, when a copyright claim was resolved, the picture was restored. Also, why even bother asking curators to resolve copyright flags if the image will be deleted either way?
In fact, in the screenshot you provided, the timeline went something like this:
- I flagged the picture because I had found it as a stock image
- The user WAS the photographer for that stock image, so it wasn’t copyright infringement and the picture was restored and visible.
- At some point, the picture was removed again, even though no new flags had been submitted.
- I submitted this topic, and asked why on the observation itself.
- The user deleted their account, probably (as @cmcheatle stated) because the user saw a notification on my comment, noticed the picture was missing again, and was understandably upset at the implication that they were stealing their own work.
Steps 1 - 3 apply to ALL the resolved flags in my first link (they aren’t all stock photographers, but they all are not infringements and were restored and visible previously).
Now, it’s possible that iNaturalist changed the way they handle copyright infringement and just remove the picture permanently now…but if so, that’s a poor way to handle it, and they need examples like all of these to show why it’s bad: sometimes, a copyright infringement flag is wrong. Either it’s an honest mistake, like mine were, or someone is maliciously using flags, and either way the observer shouldn’t be punished by having the original image removed without an option to restore it after the flag resolution in their favor. Yes, the “copyrighted media removed” should be up when the flag is submitted. It should only be permanent (and the original deleted) when the copyright infringement has been determined to have actually occurred.