Pixabay has royalty free music you can use for free(pixabay.com)
pixabay.com
Pixabay has royalty free music you can use for free
https://pixabay.com/
38 comments
(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
> 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.
Pixabay does offer a legally binding license to you, written here: 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.
> Pixabay does offer a legally binding license to you, written here: 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-allow...)
What happens when the depicted content does infringe through no fault of the user who got the image from Pixabay?
"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-allow...)
What happens when the depicted content does infringe through no fault of the user who got the image from Pixabay?
> 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.
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.
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 [email protected] or [email protected] 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.
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 [email protected] or [email protected] 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]
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lol so it’s a search engine masquerading as a royalty free media site
Is it a search engine searching other sites, or is it just searching stuff that its own users uploaded?
[deleted]
I think that caveat only applies to images, not music, right? The title of this post only mentions music (I don't know why).
Related:
Openverse https://wordpress.org/openverse/ (formerly CC Search)
NoCopyrightSounds https://ncs.io/
Dova-Syndrome https://dova-s.jp/EN/
Incompetech https://incompetech.com/
Openverse https://wordpress.org/openverse/ (formerly CC Search)
NoCopyrightSounds https://ncs.io/
Dova-Syndrome https://dova-s.jp/EN/
Incompetech https://incompetech.com/
Here's a list of sites from the creative commons.
Music for use in videos:
https://creativecommons.org/about/program-areas/arts-culture...
Music communities:
https://creativecommons.org/about/program-areas/arts-culture...
If you're doing audio postprocessing, I suggest listening to this excellent podcast tutorial.
https://www.drabblecast.org/tag/relaunch-prelaunch/
It's the second to last episode: Inside Drabblecast Audio.
Have fun!
(I have no affiliation with the Drabblecast; it is one of my favorite fiction podcasts, and has great audio production quality.)
Music for use in videos:
https://creativecommons.org/about/program-areas/arts-culture...
Music communities:
https://creativecommons.org/about/program-areas/arts-culture...
If you're doing audio postprocessing, I suggest listening to this excellent podcast tutorial.
https://www.drabblecast.org/tag/relaunch-prelaunch/
It's the second to last episode: Inside Drabblecast Audio.
Have fun!
(I have no affiliation with the Drabblecast; it is one of my favorite fiction podcasts, and has great audio production quality.)
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_MacLeod [2] https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_MacLeod [2] https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/
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.
Free being 'gratis' in this case. There are additional licensing terms that make it non-libre/non-open/non-free (as in freedom) [0].
Finding quality libre or public domain art remains difficult. Here are a few resources that I've found:
Archive.org - https://archive.org/
FOSsil Bank Art(Libre) - http://fossilbank.wikidot.com/category:art-libre
Flickr British Library - https://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/albums
Artnome - https://www.artnome.com/art-data
Comic Book Plus - https://comicbookplus.com/ (public domain comics)
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.
[0] https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license
Finding quality libre or public domain art remains difficult. Here are a few resources that I've found:
Archive.org - https://archive.org/
FOSsil Bank Art(Libre) - http://fossilbank.wikidot.com/category:art-libre
Flickr British Library - https://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/albums
Artnome - https://www.artnome.com/art-data
Comic Book Plus - https://comicbookplus.com/ (public domain comics)
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.
[0] https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license
Used a music from Pixabay on a YouTube video, had a copyright claim from the author.
(Apparently there's a process to clear it: https://pixabay.com/blog/posts/how-to-clear-a-youtube-conten...)
(Apparently there's a process to clear it: https://pixabay.com/blog/posts/how-to-clear-a-youtube-conten...)
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.
How did your process go, old sport?
"Good news! After reviewing your dispute, [...] has decided to release their copyright claim on your YouTube video."
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!
There's also the YouTube channel AudioLibraryFreeMusic that has a lot of high quality songs that are apparently safe to use, even for commerical use.
https://m.youtube.com/c/AudioLibraryFreeMusic/featured
https://m.youtube.com/c/AudioLibraryFreeMusic/featured
[deleted]
Roll-your-own-license rather than Creative Commons?
https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license
https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license
MorgueFile is another decent source:
https://morguefile.com/
https://morguefile.com/
Can I use the music for YouTube vlogs?
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
Actually, if you do get one, you should be able to clear it with a Pixabay License certificate: https://pixabay.com/blog/posts/how-to-clear-a-youtube-conten...
(Disclosure: I work for Canva, the parent company of Pixabay).
(Disclosure: I work for Canva, the parent company of Pixabay).
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.
not that great, though
Ah so this is where all of that terrible Kickstarter pitch video music comes from.
This is new? Feels like spam
2020 https://pixabay.com/blog/posts/announcing-pixabay-music-179/
There a number of other stock photo/video sites that began offering this kind of thing in the last 5 years also. Vimeo comes to mind.
2020 https://pixabay.com/blog/posts/announcing-pixabay-music-179/
There a number of other stock photo/video sites that began offering this kind of thing in the last 5 years also. Vimeo comes to mind.
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