I noticed an observation graded research 6 months ago (here) is already on Gbif, but another that is RG for more than a year (here) is not…
All listings for this species on Gbif here
Maybe I’m missing something, but it looks like a bug (seriously).
I would always examine copyrights first; if they are different types that likely explains it.
1 Like
Shouldn’t copyrights only concern the photos, not the observations?
I am not a copyright attorney so would not presume to know, however there are numerous forum threads about selecting copyrights and perhaps that question may be answered within one.
It would appear the Observation itself may also be covered.
Just to make it clear, in this case it’s not about copyright, all my obs are on the same license as the one I linked, and they are ported to Gbif.org.
I was thinking maybe the script (Thai) used for the location is posing problems…
the observation license is not compatible with GBIF, as it contains a SA clause.
no bug here.
3 Likes
I see… iNaturalist might want to encourage users to share these observations with a different license than the photos then, as many Gbif data comes without photos anyway.
That way it would not be 100% lost for those who use Gbif…
The default license choice does allow sharing with GBIF.
2 Likes
I understand, thanks both for your answers.
The point is that a naturalist observation is not a personal, “original work”, it should not be a creation (we don’t don’t want something made up here), but only an accurate report of a reality.
So unlike photos, audio recordings (or books, blogs, etc.) I don’t see how it can be protected by copyright, and so the licensing term does not make sense for the observation part… maybe good to have the options to share with other sites, though.
I’ll leave it there, I got the explanation for my question, the Share Alike clause in this case, maybe you get my point too…