Pixbay is verry waffly on what is and is not permitted[1], and in their "conclusion" they basically wash their hands of the risk, putting the onus back on the user:
Understand that Pixabay images can be used in many instances without asking permission from the image author. However, it is your responsibility, to make sure the depicted content (persons, logos, designs, property, etc.) is suitable for your use and does not infringe any rights.
Meanwhile, somewhere like Getty gives a clear warranty that using their Royalty-Free content will not infringe on rights[1]:
For licensed royalty-free content (excluding content marked “editorial” or “intended for editorial”), Getty Images warrants that your use of such content in accordance with this agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (that is, excluding any modifications, overlays or refocusing done by you) will not infringe on any trademark or other intellectual property right, and will not violate any right of privacy or right of publicity.
> Under the Pixabay License you are granted an irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive and royalty free right to use, download, copy, modify or adapt the Content for commercial or non-commercial purposes. Attribution of the photographer, videographer, musician or Pixabay is not required but is always appreciated.
(subject to exclusions, you should read in the license)
Of course, being a free stock library, Pixabay isn't able to offer specific warranties beyond the provided rights, like Getty's paid offering. The same way an open source project isn't going to come with support that you'd get from licensing an Oracle product.
I think it's a reasonable comparison: most open source licenses don't give you trademark rights. For example, see the "Trademarks" exclusion in the Apache 2.0 license.
When it comes to Pixabay content, most do not feature trademarks, or identifiable persons. That makes the Getty warranties moot.
Furthermore, their warranties have caveats ("your use of such content in accordance with this agreement"). If you use a stock photo with a model in an obscene or pornographic way, that automatically voids the Getty license and the warranty, the same way it automatically voids the Pixabay license.
> As for the "cost" of a Getty (or other) image license. Said cost of an image is far, far, FAR lower than being taken to court for rights infringement.
Yes, however, rightsholders don't go straight to court filings unless you're maybe doing a Superbowl commercial or something. They'd usually send you a letter of demand for $xxx for a retroactive license.
If this does happen to anyone, please reach out to info@pixabay.com or copyright@canva.com depending on where you got the content from; it's very rare but we do have a process and legal team that helps with this. And I can tell you: paid stock libraries (including Getty) deal with these too, and resolve it in essentially the same way we do.
This is much better than a "personal use" license or a non-commercial license, but the added licensing terms are, in my opinion, still pretty restrictive:
"""
a. Sale or distribution of Content as digital Content or as digital wallpapers (such as on stock media websites or as NFTs);
b. Sale or distribution of Content e.g. as a posters, digital prints, music files or physical products, without adding any additional elements or otherwise adding value
c. Depiction of identifiable persons in an offensive, pornographic, obscene, immoral, defamatory or libelous way; or
d. Any suggestion that there is an endorsement of products and services by depicted persons, brands, vocalists and organisations, unless permission was granted.
"""
This puts is squarely in the 'non-libre' or 'non-open' side of things.
For example, this would be in violation of any GPL-like license. While software licenses don't necessarily apply to things like pictures, I would be hesitant to include any pictures from Pixabay in any libre software I was creating.
a. and b. make it non-free because you basically can't redistribute in unmodified form.
However, restrictions like c. and d. (among others) could come into play however the image is licensed. And, in fact, absent a model release form, any use of images of recognizable people for any sort of marketing or advertising use is suspect.
I don't disagree. Those uses are probably mostly not issues the government would involve itself in but could be legitimate civil torts. It may be worth reminding people of those things somewhere but arguably doesn't belong in the license itself.
Related is Kevin MacLeod [1]'s music [2], who you've almost -certainly- heard before. He has thousands of royalty-free CC music and has become deeply entrenched in (at least my perception of) early 2010s internet BGM.
Imagine my surprise when I saw Incompetech credited in every episode of Last Podcast on the Left. I credited them in a short film about 7 years ago and it was surreal seeing it pop up again.
And of course, Wikipedia has libre-licensed art. I'm a little embarrassed but PublicDomainPictures and PublicDomainVectors is also a go-to resource for me.
Same thing here. I got hit from several pixabay tracks. It seems like bullshit if you're going to get a copyright claim unless you jump through this long list of hoops. Royalty free should be just that, with no strings attached.
Didn't know that about Pixabay, but very nice. I have been looking for music to accompany some videos of mine. In the past I used https://www.bensound.com for some nice tunes. Have been using Pixabay for ages for beautiful high-res photos. Thanks Pixabay!
I don't expect a copyright match using these. But if you do get one, consider the site flawed since the music is supposed to be royalty free, gratis and absent of copyright
You should put a warning on each track. When I first started trying Pixabay the only message for any given track was "Crediting isn't required, but linking back is greatly appreciated and allows music authors to gain exposure." There's nothing warning users that they will more than likely be hit with a copyright notice and will have to follow some specific steps to get around it. That's pretty annoying.
Pixbay is verry waffly on what is and is not permitted[1], and in their "conclusion" they basically wash their hands of the risk, putting the onus back on the user:
Understand that Pixabay images can be used in many instances without asking permission from the image author. However, it is your responsibility, to make sure the depicted content (persons, logos, designs, property, etc.) is suitable for your use and does not infringe any rights.
Meanwhile, somewhere like Getty gives a clear warranty that using their Royalty-Free content will not infringe on rights[1]:
For licensed royalty-free content (excluding content marked “editorial” or “intended for editorial”), Getty Images warrants that your use of such content in accordance with this agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (that is, excluding any modifications, overlays or refocusing done by you) will not infringe on any trademark or other intellectual property right, and will not violate any right of privacy or right of publicity.
[1] https://pixabay.com/blog/posts/pixabay-license-what-is-allow... [2] https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/eula