i think this probably needs some clarifications and corrections.
- GloBI appears to get any research grade observation with particular observation fields indicating some sort of interaction, regardless of license.
- what matters for GBIF is the observation license, not the image or audio licenses.
- what matters for typical Wikimedia use is the image or audio license, not the observation license. also, i don’t think “share to Wikimedia” is the the right way to describe this. whereas iNat does actively push data to GBIF (“share to GBIF”), it’s not actively sharing anything to Wikimedia. instead, Wikimedia contributors can take stuff with certain licenses from iNat and use it on Wikimedia. the original author of the media could also separately share their media to Wikimedia, providing an appropriate license there, regardless of what the license is in iNat.
- i think “allow license changes” is a little ambiguous. for any observation, photo, or sound, you can change your license at any time (although folks already using those items under a previous license can continue to use those under the old license terms). what the share-alike provision in a CC license does is it requires others to share copies or derivatives with a similar license as the original.
- “(i.e. research)” after “Fair Use” isn’t really accurate. research is not automatically a fair use case. additionally, even if you could claim fair use for some research cases, some publishers – using their own standards – won’t publish your work if you’re not using appropriately licensed data.
- if you’re going to include sharing to third parties like GBIF, i would also include inclusion of any licensed image in the AWS Open Data Set. with AI / computer being a major use case for the iNat data, it’s worth noting that any licensed image will end up in that set. (this is also notable because iNat does not pay the cost of hosting these images.)