4 ms·

I wonder how legit this site is. It says: > These SVG images were created by modifying the images of Pixabay. And indeed, the images seem to be taken from pix

by jbit 5y ago

I wonder how legit this site is. It says: > These SVG images were created by modifying the images of Pixabay. And indeed, the images seem to be taken from pixabay (e.g. [0], [1]), however the pixabay license is NOT CC0, and specifically forbids redistribution [2]: > Don't redistribute or sell Pixabay content on other stock or wallpaper platforms. [0]: https://svgsilh.com/image/1801287.html https://svgsilh.com/image/1801287.html [1]: https://pixabay.com/vectors/grooming-cat-kitty-kitten-feline-1801287/ https://pixabay.com/vectors/grooming-cat-kitty-kitten-feline... [2]: https://pixabay.com/service/license/ https://pixabay.com/service/license/

gigglesupstairs 5y ago
Redistibution on stock platforms is not allowed for pixabay content. Terms don’t say anything about edited Pixabay content.
marcodiego 5y ago
You're accusing without due research. The image on the pixabay site is from 2016, while the license it used until late 2018 was CC0: https://www.sugarfire.net/pixabay-license-change-no-longer-a-cc0-license/ https://www.sugarfire.net/pixabay-license-change-no-longer-a...
King-Aaron 5y ago
I'll go out on a limb and say "not legit at all", and would probably want to run it in a sandbox before downloading any links
- marcodiego 5y ago
  Without presenting any evidence, your comment sounds like pure prejudice. The site has its few problems: - 2 advertisements and - link to facebook. Besides that it is: one of listed filters in creative commons search: https://search.creativecommons.org/search?q=trust&license=cc0&source=svgsilh https://search.creativecommons.org/search?q=trust&license=cc... , does not insist to became a member, has no paid premium features, very clean, no sketchy ads, no intrusive popups, default presentation is not the most "clicked items", and has no links to any suspect site. I can't really see why it looks "'not legit at all', and would probably want to run it in a sandbox before downloading any links".

by jbit 5y ago

gigglesupstairs 5y ago

Redistibution on stock platforms is not allowed for pixabay content. Terms don’t say anything about edited Pixabay content.

marcodiego 5y ago

You're accusing without due research. The image on the pixabay site is from 2016, while the license it used until late 2018 was CC0: https://www.sugarfire.net/pixabay-license-change-no-longer-a-cc0-license/ https://www.sugarfire.net/pixabay-license-change-no-longer-a...

King-Aaron 5y ago

I'll go out on a limb and say "not legit at all", and would probably want to run it in a sandbox before downloading any links

marcodiego 5y ago
Without presenting any evidence, your comment sounds like pure prejudice. The site has its few problems: - 2 advertisements and - link to facebook. Besides that it is: one of listed filters in creative commons search: https://search.creativecommons.org/search?q=trust&license=cc0&source=svgsilh https://search.creativecommons.org/search?q=trust&license=cc... , does not insist to became a member, has no paid premium features, very clean, no sketchy ads, no intrusive popups, default presentation is not the most "clicked items", and has no links to any suspect site. I can't really see why it looks "'not legit at all', and would probably want to run it in a sandbox before downloading any links".