4 ms·

(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/t

by dannyw 5y 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 5y ago
traceroute66 5y 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 5y 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.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
seanwilson 5y ago
> Pixabay does offer a legally binding license to you, written here: https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license "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" (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...) What happens when the depicted content does infringe through no fault of the user who got the image from Pixabay?
abetusk 5y ago
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.
- ghaff 5y ago
  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.
  - abetusk 5y ago
    Agreed but having clauses "c" and "d" can be abused. If the usage outlined is illegal, then there's no need to add it to a license agreement as the type of use is prevented by law. If it's legal then there's always the possibility to prevent usage by claiming it violates the terms outlined.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      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.

by dannyw 5y ago

ogma 5y ago

traceroute66 5y 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 5y 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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

seanwilson 5y ago

> Pixabay does offer a legally binding license to you, written here: https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license "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" (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...) What happens when the depicted content does infringe through no fault of the user who got the image from Pixabay?

abetusk 5y ago

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.

ghaff 5y ago
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.
- abetusk 5y ago
  Agreed but having clauses "c" and "d" can be abused. If the usage outlined is illegal, then there's no need to add it to a license agreement as the type of use is prevented by law. If it's legal then there's always the possibility to prevent usage by claiming it violates the terms outlined.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    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.