Creative Commons Licensing on images
A number of NZ Naturewatch users apply the 'All rights reserved' license to their photographs. I have decided that from now on I will not provide identifications for such records. Restricting the use of the image in this way makes the record unusable from my perspective, as a scientist, and so I will bypass them. The image is the key piece of information allowing a record to be independently verified at any time in the future and independently of Naturewatch - a fundamental requirement in any area of research. 'All Rights Reserved' means the image cannot be part of the permanent package of evidence accompanying the record in any use external to Naturewatch. I can understand the desire to derive potential income from images but I don't believe NW is the place to promote that or to get free identifications (which add value that doesn't accrue to the identifier). If you genuinely want to share your records and images then adopt a Creative Commons Licence. I recommend CC-BY-NC, which means that your images can be used for non-commercial purposes and you will always be credited for the image, whatever the use. You can negotiate terms if somebody does want to use the image for commercial purposes. Although it is worth saying that even a CC-BY-NC license means the image will not be considered for use on Wikipedia because even that license is considered too restrictive.
For some users the adoption of 'All rights reserved' was probably an oversight when they setup their account ( it is not, and never has been the default setting for new users and would have been changed by the user). If you want to use a CC license by default then go to your Profile (menu top right of desktop web page), then 'Edit Account Settings and Profile' , scroll down to Licensing-Default Photo License, and tick one of the sensible options. I use CC-BY but I would recommend CC-BY-NC if you think your photos have commercial value. Then, most importantly, tick the box at the bottom that says 'Update existing photos with new license choices' . If you want to maintain 'All Rights Reserved' as the default setting because, for example you are a professional bird photographer, but also submit the occasional fungus, then you can change the license individually on each image for each record.
You may consider it not worth changing your License just to get fungal identifications from me, especially when many of my identifications are at genus level or above. There are reasons to consider and they concern your role as a Citizen Scientist in using Naturewatch. I actively try to look at all the NZ fungal records submitted to NW (at least for non-bracket fungi). I want to be able to regularly collate the subset of records I can trust and use (and not necessarily accepting community IDs). I'd like to maintain a minimum quality for the data and to keep an eye out for new records of species, which we (every NZ citizen) are required, by law, to report to the government agencies. I want a consistent quality so the data becomes fit-for-purpose for research work.
For example over the last year I have used NW Citizen Science fungal data in the following ways ...
- Naturewatch images were used in a successful prototype demonstration of the use of Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for automated image recognition. This is a separate NZ based project to the one you may have seen from the iNat guys, and I am focused on biosecurity 'early warning' systems (e.g. detecting rust spores in the wind coming from Australia!)
- Citizen Science data from Naturewatch was initially included in a research paper investigating the role of ectomycorrhizal fungi and their relationship with host trees when introduced species enter a new area. Data from CS network in the UK and NZ were included. Results derived from a combined 2.2 million observations show species-partnering and hyphal foraging strategies are relaxed (or at least change) upon introduction of a tree into a new area.
- The NW community continues to highlight rarely encountered fungal species, facilitating taxonomic/biogeographical research and sequence characterisation (by me). Some of your records and your CC images have been/will be used to describe new species and next year Amanita sp 2 (the Noddy Flycap) will be published with NW records (your records - if the images are CC)
- Data (curated data) from NW has been critical in assessing the threat status of fungi in NZ. This year it supported the inclusion of two NZ species on the IUCN red-list and contributed to DOC’s New Zealand Threat Classificaton Status (NZTCS). The new fungal list will be published next year
- Important records this year include:
- http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/3573458 Hodophilus sp. nov. bizarrely related to club fungi
- http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations?place_id=6803&subview=grid&taxon_id=374682 Dermoloma murinum not seen for 53 years and with unknown affiliation with northern hemisphere grassland species
- http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations?place_id=6803&subview=grid&taxon_id=206646 Tricholosporum sp. – undescribed species in a rare genus with Tropical Asia affinities
- http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/4727831 A tiny undescribed puffball parasitic on liverworts that appears to be more closely related to the ancestor of all puffballs than anything else extant (and sequenced/accessible).
- http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/5934031 Undescibed and only the second species in the genus Polyozellus otherwise known only from North America, and a potential Nationally Critical threatened species (along with its relative Boletopsis nothofagi now on the IUCN red list).
So, if you want to contribute to this kind of work, then make sure you don't use 'All Rights Reserved' on your fungal images.
Note on good fungal records
Sometime I will also write about what constitutes a good fungal record. The majority of NW fungal records fail that standard and as consequence can only be 'guessed at' with relatively low probability of being correct. Photos are needed showing ALL the relevant features close-up and with a good colour balance, lighting and focus. We need to see the cap, stem, gills, the way the gills are attached to the stem, the stem base, any ring, and the way it is attached to the substrate. Removing a fruitbody to photograph these details will not affect the population. It will have already released millions of spores and the fruitbody is just the 'apple on the tree'. The 'body' of the fungus is the hyphae running through the soil and unaffected by picking. We need a habitat photo (not something cut off with a knife, taken home and put on a piece of paper then photographed). We need to know the scale. The substrate (soil, wood on a living tree, dead wood etc). The texture - tough, fragile, crumbly ec. We need to know the associated species, guessed if it is a potential ectomycorrhizal species. We need to know any odour, the taste (a small bit on the tongue will not kill you), any changes to the flesh color on exposure to air. Ideally we need to now the color of the spores, from a spore print. But if you really want accurate identifications then you will also need a microscope with an attached camera and some key chemicals like Potassium hydroxide solution and Melzer's reagent. Identifying fungi accurately is not easy, which is why it is an interesting challenge! Sure you can take casual phone-camera snaps of fungi and put them on Naturewatch and sometimes they will be distinctive species we can identify and it will be a useful record. Often it won't fall into that category unless you make an effort, and then that effort will be rewarded by an often interesting and useful identification at species level.