[teryyy]

https://www.pexels.com/ is another similar site, owned by Canva which seems to have kept its quality through the years.

[anthropodie]

Someone mentioned yet another alternative which I have used previously but had completely forgotten

https://pixabay.com

[sdoering]

I switched to pixabay from unsplash when looking for stock images for presentations. Nowadays I nearly never use unsplash. Maybe because I don't look for landscape that much.

Because unsplash actually made my desktop backgrounds look good.

[minxomat]

Pexels is the best community for people who want to share their photos/videos (CC0). It's the worst community for monetising that in any way.

[dbrgn]

> It's the worst community for monetising that in any way.

That sounds fantastic, I'll take a look!

Edit: It's not CC0 though, right? The Pexels License looks similar to the Unsplash License.

[dannyw]

(Disclosure: I work for Canva)

You are allowed to do anything with Pexels photos, except 4 conditions listed on the plain English licensing page: https://www.pexels.com/license/

In short, • don’t portray identifiable people in a bad way • don’t sell unaltered, make a change first • don’t imply endorsement • don’t redistribute on other sites.

Commercial use is perfectly fine. You don’t need to attribute, but our photographers (and we) prefer it.

[ipsum2]

> don’t portray identifiable people in a bad way

Not a lawyer, but this is so arbitrary that any sensible company wouldn't touch Pexels. What is considered bad? If the person is put next to some junk food? Cigarettes? An abortion clinic ad? Oil company?

This is the same issue with the No Evil license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not...

[huskyr]

Yup, this is also why Wikimedia Commons doesn't allow Pexels as a source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bad_sources#Pexel...

[Qub3d]

The link you provide says Wikimedia Commons doesn't allow Pexels because of the non-commercial clause. It says nothing about the morality clause.

[nitrogen]

If you really need a picture of a human, you could just...get that person's permission instead of whining about free not being "free."

[busymom0]

I don't see it as whining. These companies are in the business of providing photos for people to be able to use. If their TOS is so vague that one simply cannot use any photos without knowing what the TOS allows or not - then the core purpose of the company has failed.

If FB and others are to be used as an example, these TOS are written vague and broad on purpose.

[tareqak]

I would actually argue that this situation is a case of a unserved need/business idea: a site with stock photos of people where it is possible for a potential user/buyer to negotiate what a particular photo would be used for with the person who’s photo is taken.

In my mind, it is similar with how I ask for references: I ask people who I think would be a good reference for me if they are willing to do so, but I also ask permission again them each time I need a reference for a given company. If there is going to be a number of companies reaching out, then I combine/bucket a number of requests into one e.g. “Three companies need me to provide them with a reference, so could I please ask your permission for those three companies”.

Yes, there is more going on in the case of copyrighted photos, but facilitating communication is one of the reasons the Internet exists.

[dannyw]

Hey Ipsum2, I want to say thank you for your feedback.

We discussed internally and will remove this clause from our license. Will be updating it soon :)

[rustc]

Actual answer for GP: no, it's not CC0.

[imagequeen]

With this acquisition, there are no independent free photo sites anymore! Maybe free photo time is up?

[shawn81]

Vecteezy.com is still independently owned :)