I have no problem when a photo clearly lifted from a book gets used.
- Photos of schoolkids by schoolkids (over 13 years old). Lack of consent is not copyright infringement. I get your point @charlie, perhaps we need a specific way to flag these?
- Watermarked photos. Please don’t just assume that the uploader is not the owner.
- Artificially manipulated photos. Just because a person created it in their computer does not mean it is not their copyright or IP. If they lifted it off somewhere else, fair game.
- Photos that appear to be duplicates uploaded by different people. Please ptake a moment to check that they ARE actually duplicated photos. A recent case had someone flag (and become abusive) with three uploaders of the same bird because he thought they were plagiarism. They happened to be people in a birding trip all photographing and independently uploading the same organism.
I guess I’m saying, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and separately, flagging a photo as copyright infringement is a form of censorship, as it becomes unavailable to non-curator users. Please take at least a moment to check whether this is really copyright infringement or not.
In many cases there are perfectly simple ways of sinking the observation into the morass without the implications of labeling it as copyright infringement: tag as not evidence of an organism for human-made objects, ID as human, etc.
Or maybe I’m just being way too pedantic about it.