search

gbif / data-mobilization

For capturing and discussing potential datasets suitable for publishing to GBIF
Apache License 2.0
12 stars 2 forks source link

Echeveria andreae inaturalist observation #396

Closed gbif-portal closed 8 months ago

gbif-portal commented 9 months ago

Echeveria andreae inaturalist observation

Dataset link: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/29938938

Region: Oaxaca, Mexico

Taxon: Crassulaceae

Type: occurrence

Priority: high

sformel-usgs commented 8 months ago

Hi @kueda! I'm the US node manager for GBIF, and I try to follow up on the issues and datasets flagged in github. I hope you don't' mind me pulling you in here.

I'm having trouble identifying why this occurrence isn't published to GBIF. As far as I can tell, it is research grade and under a CC-BY license. I couldn't see the timestamp on the research grade, so it's possible I just need to be patient. Could you take a look when you have a moment?

ManonGros commented 8 months ago

Hi @sformel-usgs the problem is that the license used isn't an open license, it is CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED. The data should be under: 1) http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/, 2) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, 3) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

sformel-usgs commented 8 months ago

Thanks @ManonGros. How did you figure this out? The inaturalist image link leads to the second license you mention (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which is why I was confused. Is the occurrence licensed differently from the image?

sformel-usgs commented 8 months ago

Ah...I found it, just had to look a little harder. My apologies, I didn't realize the pictures and observations could have difference licenses applied.

kueda commented 8 months ago

Yeah, sorry about that. The different license thing is a constant source of confusion that we should probably ditch.

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024, 8:59 PM Stephen Formel @.***> wrote:

Ah...I found it, just had to look a little harder. My apologies, I didn't realize the pictures and observations could have difference licenses applied.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gbif/data-mobilization/issues/396#issuecomment-1905295693, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAFRI7AM2GZXEEVTQBKDMLYP47TLAVCNFSM6AAAAABANXF35GVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMBVGI4TKNRZGM . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

timhirsch commented 7 months ago

Before ditching... we would want to be sure this does not deter iNat users from apply a record licence compatible with GBIF sharing if they were not able to apply a stricter licence on their photos #unintendedconsequences.

sformel-usgs commented 7 months ago

I agree with @timhirsch. Despite my confusion, I don't think it's necessary to ditch it. I can understand why people might want to apply different licenses to different types of information. I think I latched onto the image license because it was at the top of the page (the little CC logo). It didn't occur to me that there might be another at the bottom of the page. @kueda my suggestion would be to try and crosslink the two somehow, rather than ditch it.