> Remember this thread?  Well, GBIF started indexing our observations a
> month or two ago, and I finally got around to incorporating notices
> about that into iNat, so if you look at older research-grade
> observations, you should see an "External Links" section showing that
> the observation was incorporated into GBIF.  Here's an example:
> http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/33273

> Again, as per this discussion, GBIF should only be indexing
> CC-licensed, research-grade observations, so if you notice that's
> *not* happening, please let me know.  We're hoping to start doing the
> same thing with CalFlora very soon.

> -ken-ichi

> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Ken-ichi <kenichi.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok folks, so we now have Creative Commons licensing options for
> > observations, and we'll use your licensing choice to determine what to
> > share with GBIF.  If you look at one of your observations, you'll see
> > a copyright notice on the lower right, with a link to let you use a
> > license.  You can set a default license, and update the license for
> > all your observations.  You can also make these changes by editing
> > your profile.

> > Right now all existing observations are unlicensed by default, so we
> > *won't* share them with GBIF.  If you want to share, please use a
> > license.  New users will have to opt-out of this.

> > If you've got thoughts or questions, fire away.

> > -ken-ichi

> > PS. Also turned on maps for all taxon pages, along with the GBIF
> > overlay, but it's not perfect.  We're using GBIF's KML feeds via
> > Google, which means Google caches the GBIF content before serving it
> > to us.  Unfortunately, if it takes more than a second or so for GBIF
> > to generate the data, Google serves us nothing until it's ready.  I
> > think we need to not rely on the Google caching, but I probably won't
> > get to that for a bit.

> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Charlie Hohn
> > <naturalist.char...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Eric,

> >> I didn't see my post as an attack, just a strong disagreement and
> >> questioning of your comment.  However, I see perhaps it was worded too
> >> strongly and I apologize.  I agree that there are concerns with
> >> transferring data without people being aware, but disagree with your
> >> comment that the data 'isn't as valuable as [Ken-ichi?] thinks' and
> >> perhaps I misinterpreted the comment as an attack/criticism of the
> >> value of the site rather than constructive feedback, so maybe you can
> >> clarify.  If not, I'll just move on to the next thread.

> >> Ken, indeed since I am most interested in plants it would be great to
> >> have access to that data!

> >> C

> >> On Jan 24, 1:23 am, Ken-ichi <kenichi.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Let's try to keep it civil, folks.  Everyone has provided constructive
> >>> feedback, and we are indeed taking it to heart.  Yes, iNat is about
> >>> sharing data, but "sharing data" can mean a lot of different things in
> >>> different contexts, and there are real risks to consider, legally in
> >>> terms of copyright law and personally in terms not betraying the
> >>> expectations of the people who contribute to the site. If any of you
> >>> have spent time participating in the feedback forums on other sites, I
> >>> think you know that the level of consideration and intelligence shown
> >>> in this discussion is a million times higher than the Internet
> >>> average.  Let's maintain that high standard.

> >>> Charlie, regarding consumption of GBIF data, we actually do have a
> >>> button on the maps on the taxon pages (for taxa with ranges) that
> >>> shows GBIF records ("Show museum records").  Check
> outwww.inaturalist.org/taxa/Marbled_Salamander#taxon_map.  We could
> >>> enable those maps for taxa w/o ranges too (like most of our plants).

> >>> -ken-ichi

> >>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Eric Hunt <e...@erichunt.com> wrote:
> >>> > Charlie,

> >>> > You validated my position and then attacked me. Not cool.  Feedback
> was asked for, it was received in the spirit it was given, and I feel like
> it was appreciated and taken to heart.

> >>> > -Eric

> >>> > On Jan 23, 2012, at 7:00 PM, Charlie Hohn wrote:

> >>> >> Wow!  I too thought the point of iNaturalist was to share data
> >>> >> including with scientists/science groups so I am surprised anyone
> >>> >> cares about this.  That being said I do hate it when Facebook
> changes
> >>> >> things without telling me so I can see the point of the opt-in
> thing.
> >>> >> Just don't make it for every observation, or I'll probably forget to
> >>> >> do so for a bunch of them.

> >>> >> Eric Hunt said "I personally feel your existing database of
> >>> >> observations is not as valuable as you think/hope it it" .  I don't
> >>> >> understand the point of this comment.  If you don't think the site/
> >>> >> observations are valuable, why are you here?  What do you mean by
> >>> >> valuable?  As someone who has spent many years mapping plant
> >>> >> communities and occurrences, any data that can be reasonably
> verified
> >>> >> with photo and GPS is incredibly valuable, and we suffer heavily
> from
> >>> >> lack of this sort of data.  Maybe you mean you think it isn't
> >>> >> monetarily valuable, and maybe that is true in some ways, in the
> >>> >> current economy.  But, this sort of information is very useful for
> >>> >> researchers, land managers, scientists, people who do things with
> >>> >> working landscapes, climatologists, etc, etc, etc,.  I'm not sure
> what
> >>> >> your vested interest in this sort of comment is, but I don't think
> it
> >>> >> is very productive.  I personally think that most of what is on
> >>> >> Twitter is useless but that's why I don't follow twitter except to
> >>> >> keep up on watershed stuff.  I especially don't jump on Twitter's
> >>> >> feedback sites and tell them they need a lawyer/might get sued if
> they
> >>> >> share public information I posted on their site.

> >>> >> Anyway, back to GBIF, is there a way this can be a two-way exchange
> of
> >>> >> information?  I think it would be really neat if, at least for
> >>> >> individual species on iNat, GBIF sightings could also be displayed,
> at
> >>> >> least by location and date.  Again, that sort of information is very
> >>> >> useful to me (at least the plants)...

> >>> >> On Jan 21, 7:26 pm, Ken-ichi <kenichi.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>> We do store photos ourselves if you upload them directly to the
> site
> >>> >>> or if you use one of the mobile apps.  Imports from
> >>> >>> Flickr/Picasa/Facebook remain hosted by their providers.  And yes,
> >>> >>> hosting photos is hard, which is partly why our photo hosting isn't
> >>> >>> all that great.

> >>> >>> -ken-ichi

> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Eric Hunt <e...@erichunt.com>
> wrote:
> >>> >>>> Joe,

> >>> >>>> Good points, and one thing that you may not have realized, is
> that iNaturalist uses (unless something has changed) the photo storage at
> Flickr and Picasa for the photos. They just do an inline call to
> Flickr/Picasa to show the image directly from the Flickr/Picasa servers.
> Your photo is never copied over to iNaturalist. Otherwise the hardware
> requirements for iNaturalist would be orders of magnitude larger.

> >>> >>>> -Eric

> >>> >>>> On Jan 21, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Joe Ford wrote:

> >>> >>>>> I just can't help myself.  I have to reply.  First, I am not a
> lawyer,
> >>> >>>>> but have had some experience with copyright infringements.
>  Second, I
> >>> >>>>> am fairly certain that I will "opt in" with the current
> proposal, but
> >>> >>>>> I will need to review the TOS at GBIF prior to making my
> decision.

> >>> >>>>> That said, it is not clear if the images will be part of the
> "shared"
> >>> >>>>> information.  The link to the example data does not work, so I am
> >>> >>>>> going to respond as if the images will be "shared".  I am
> generally
> >>> >>>>> fairly open with sharing my images, but I reserve the right to
> know
> >>> >>>>> "clearly" what is to be done with them.  I felt comfortable with
> the
> >>> >>>>> TOS for iNaturalist in that they would not be used for
> commercial gain
> >>> >>>>> without my expressed permission.  Without reviewing the TOS from
> GBIF,
> >>> >>>>> I do not know if they will also take the same approach with "my"
> >>> >>>>> images.  Yes, even though I have chosen to share my images with
> >>> >>>>> iNaturalist they remain my images.  I have not abdicated  the
> right to
> >>> >>>>> approve or disapprove them being provided to another
> organization.

> >>> >>>>> That said, the "opt out" option would work for me, as I am
> currently
> >>> >>>>> active at iNaturalist, but probably would not work for
> individuals who
> >>> >>>>> are not currently active.  One might think that stating (TOS)
> that the
> >>> >>>>> contributor is responsible for keeping up with changes will
> protect
> >>> >>>>> iNaturalist, but that statement does not "trump" copyright law.

> >>> >>>>> On top of this, the entire copyright infringement liability
> issue may
> >>> >>>>> soon be ramped up to a whole new level.  There are two bills
> (one each
> >>> >>>>> in the House of Representatives and Senate) that will change the
> >>> >>>>> entire concept of data ownership and infringement liablity for
> the
> >>> >>>>> internet if they become law.  The intent of both bills is to put
> teeth
> >>> >>>>> into the law to protect data from piracy.  Some major data
> handlers
> >>> >>>>> (e.g. Google and Wikapedia) have expressed great concern over the
> >>> >>>>> bills as being too restrictive for their comfort.

> >>> >>>>> I would recommend (remember, I am not a lawyer) that the "opt-in"
> >>> >>>>> option would be much, much safer for iNaturalist.   If a
> contributor's
> >>> >>>>> image ended up on the cover of "National Geographic" without
> proper
> >>> >>>>> accreditation and was provided by GBIF, you would have a positive
> >>> >>>>> affirmation that you (iNaturalist) had permission to share with
> GBIF.

> >>> >>>>> Just to repeat, I most likely will "opt-in".  Copyright law is
> very
> >>> >>>>> convoluted, and I would also recommend that a specialist in
> copyright
> >>> >>>>> law be consulted.  Remember, people have entrusted iNaturalist
> with
> >>> >>>>> their data/images based on a specific TOS.  iNaturalist will be
> >>> >>>>> changing that TOS.  "Opt-in" helps (in my opinion) protect
> iNaturalist
> >>> >>>>> from future problems.

> >>> >>>>> Joe

> >>> >>>>> On Jan 19, 7:27 pm, Ken-ichi <kenichi.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>>>> Hi folks,
> >>> >>>>>> e n
> >>> >>>>>> We're planning on becoming a GBIF data provider.  The Global
> >>> >>>>>> Biodiversity Informatics Facility (GBIF,http://www.gbif.org)
> is an
> >>> >>>>>> international, inter-governmental organization dedicated to
> compiling
> >>> >>>>>> and distributing biodiversity information from around the
> world.  A
> >>> >>>>>> lot of their data come from museum collections, but an
> increasing
> >>> >>>>>> amount comes from citizen science efforts like eBird.  Many
> scientists
> >>> >>>>>> use GBIF data in their work, so we think becoming a provider
> will help
> >>> >>>>>> make the data you guys generate more accessible.

> >>> >>>>>> A couple things to keep in mind:

> >>> >>>>>> 1) we will only be sending them research-grade observations

> >>> >>>>>> 2) we will *not* be sending them private or obscured
> coordinates (they
> >>> >>>>>> will see the same coordinates that a logged out person would
> see on
> >>> >>>>>> iNat)

> >>> >>>>>> 3) observers are credited using their full name if we have it,
> and
> >>> >>>>>> failing that their username

> >>> >>>>>> 4) we'll regenerate the data we send to GBIF weekly (or
> something like
> >>> >>>>>> that, weekly seems reasonable to me)

> >>> >>>>>> 5) if you change or delete data from iNat, the corresponding
> records
> >>> >>>>>> at GBIF may not be changed or deleted for several weeks
> (apparently
> >>> >>>>>> that's what their turnaround is like)

> >>> >>>>>> If this does *not* sound like something you want to participate
> in,
> >>> >>>>>> you can opt out by viewing your profile on iNat, clicking "Edit
> >>> >>>>>> account settings & profile" on the lower right, and unchecking
> the
> >>> >>>>>> "Share with GBIF" option.

> >>> >>>>>> We probably need to tinker with this a bit still, but if you
> want to
> >>> >>>>>> see what we'll be sending them, it will look something like
> this:http://www.inaturalist.org/gbif-observations-dwca.tgz

> >>> >>>>>> If you have comments or questions, fire away!

> >>> >>>>>> -ken-ichi

> >>> >>>>> --
> >>> >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
> >>> >>>>> To post to this group, send email to
> inaturalist@googlegroups.com.
> >>> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> inaturalist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> >>> >>>>> For more options, visit this group athttp://
> groups.google.com/group/inaturalist?hl=en.

> >>> >>>> --
> >>> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
> >>> >>>> To post to this group, send email to inaturalist@googlegroups.com
> .
> >>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> inaturalist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> >>> >>>> For more options, visit this group athttp://
> groups.google.com/group/inaturalist?hl=en.

> >>> >> --
> >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "iNaturalist" group.
> >>> >> To post to this group, send

> >>> ...

> >>> read more »

> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "iNaturalist" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to inaturalist@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> inaturalist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist?hl=en.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "iNaturalist" group.
> To post to this group, send email to inaturalist@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> inaturalist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist?hl=en.