2 ms·

> 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-straw

> 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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

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.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]