Open source photos for Canadian Noctuid moths

With the removal of the CBIF website for moths, I have lost my source of largely open source images of moths. I didn’t need to ask permission to use them, but only to give credit for the photos. I’ve looked at GBIF, and it would take a lot of sorting to find the Canadian images again.
Does anyone know of a good source for images that I could use for developing visual ID guides for these moths? Or can this method be used for iNat images? My understanding is that I would need to ask permission from the photographer, as well as giving credit.

1 Like

Depends I think; most of my uploads are creative commons (scroll down look in the right pane)

by-nc-nd means:
give credit (by), you cannot make money off of it (nc - non commercial), and you may not create derivative works (nd - no derivatives)

If you search the images also in the Commons you’ll probably find a lot, most people who use this site a lot have it set to that I think it saves iNat server money or something

eta - now I do love knowing where my images are used, so i still think a note is nice to send folk :) but you don’t have to ask permission with this particular (and many) Commons licenses.

1 Like

It depends on each observation and user, people can change the copyrights for each individual observation. I have all of mine set to be public domain for example.

Here’s a link I set up to show all the obsevations on the site with photos that are public domain. You can also then further change the filter to show photos that require credit.


The image in your screenshot refers to the observation license, which is often set differently than the photo/sound license.

The media license is in the bottom center of the photo/sound. You can also view it by clicking the (i) under a photo and checking the top right corner.


From the Account Settings page:


By no derivatives, does that mean if I modify the photo with pointers and comments on features, I have broken the rule? This is an example of what I would like to achieve (my photo) -

You need to check which license is used, most allow changing.

1 Like

Great link. I really need to learn how to use the searches better!

You can also filter for images on Google with Creative Commons licenses. E.g.,

Often, the filters for such usages are under a tab or icon labeled advanced or more.


Thank you all for the help!


1 Like

All of my images should show as Creative Commons license, so you are welcome to use any of them (with attribution) at any time. That said, mine are not always the best quality, but there are a fair number of them, and some of them might do for eastern Canadian noctuids!


Who knew that the easy to find license option was not about the photos too xD
I fancy myself pretty savvy but clearly this is all hidden stuff to me, I don’t even see those CC(flag)i things on my images. thanks for speaking up! some things on this site aren’t intuitive for sure :) to me, observation is the entire thing!

eta: ok i see the white overalys when I hover over the image. ha, who knew xD


No derivatives wouldn’t allow changing.
Personally I’d be fine with that sort of thing if the knowledge created with the image was then freely shared to all, so just lmk.
But I have had people take my images; re-do some contrast or otherwise lightly photoshop it, and then post it as their own work claiming it was 'derivative so now it’s mine ‘cause its different now!’. (Once, they even started selling it, like what the F?!?!) so its just easier for me to say no derivatives as I won’t have that happen again. Obv there is a lot wrong in those situations; but dealing with it is still draining so it’s easier to say ‘nope’ and if someone wants to use one my images for some reason, have them ask. :)

A lot of people us CC and allow derivative works though, so just change the search parameter for that! And likely lots us who say no derivatives, have had similar such experiences which is why our default setting is nope.

1 Like

you might be interested in voting for one of my feature requests :)


That sort of derivative is not my plan, and if I use iNat photos, I will certainly let the photographer know. My intention would be to use it on my moth ID wiki for iNat use.
The great thing about the CBIF images was that as a Canadian taxpayer, they sort of belonged to me, although they did request that they received credit! Which I gave.


done! wholey agree with you.
The entire thing is always referenced as The Observation.
No one calls it “observed note AND supporting media”
So why would anyone think that The Observation copyright wasn’t for the entire…well…observation!?


This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.