4 ms·

The devil is in the detail as they say. Pixbay is verry waffly on what is and is not permitted[1], and in their "conclusion" they basically wash their hands of

The devil is in the detail as they say. 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-allowed-and-what-is-not--4/ https://pixabay.com/blog/posts/pixabay-license-what-is-allow... [2] https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/eula https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/eula

birdyrooster 5y ago
Lol so it’s a search engine masquerading as a royalty free media site
- Thorrez 4y ago
  Is it a search engine searching other sites, or is it just searching stuff that its own users uploaded?
  - selcuka 4y ago
    Is there really a difference? Instead of using automated spiders it asks users to do the crawling. Is Pinterest not a search engine for images?
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      Is any significant percent of the stuff uploaded there uploaded by people who didn't have the copyright?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dannyw 4y ago
(Disclosure: I work for Canva, the parent company of Pixabay). Pixabay does offer a legally binding license to you, written here: https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license > 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.
- ogma 4y ago
- traceroute66 4y ago
  > The same way an open source project isn't going to come with support that you'd get from licensing a (paid) Oracle product. I've seen some clutching-at-straws arguments in my time, but oof, that's a doozy ! Apples and Oranges. Let's just say I would question the utility of an image "license" that is not able to provide an infringement warranty. 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.
  - dannyw 4y ago
    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.
Thorrez 4y ago
I think that caveat only applies to images, not music, right? The title of this post only mentions music (I don't know why).

birdyrooster 5y ago

Lol so it’s a search engine masquerading as a royalty free media site

Thorrez 4y ago
Is it a search engine searching other sites, or is it just searching stuff that its own users uploaded?
- selcuka 4y ago
  Is there really a difference? Instead of using automated spiders it asks users to do the crawling. Is Pinterest not a search engine for images?
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    Is any significant percent of the stuff uploaded there uploaded by people who didn't have the copyright?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dannyw 4y ago

(Disclosure: I work for Canva, the parent company of Pixabay). Pixabay does offer a legally binding license to you, written here: https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license > 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.

ogma 4y ago
traceroute66 4y ago
> The same way an open source project isn't going to come with support that you'd get from licensing a (paid) Oracle product. I've seen some clutching-at-straws arguments in my time, but oof, that's a doozy ! Apples and Oranges. Let's just say I would question the utility of an image "license" that is not able to provide an infringement warranty. 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.
- dannyw 4y ago
  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.

Thorrez 4y ago

I think that caveat only applies to images, not music, right? The title of this post only mentions music (I don't know why).