[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.

[dannyw]

We appreciate the feedback, and will discuss internally to see if we can make this clause more specific and objective.

[dbrgn]

Clauses like that are really really hard. CC has the NC clause, which is problematic because it may not be clear what consists of commercial use and what doesn't. If a non-profit uses a picture for a fundraiser, is that commercial or not?

The thing that one of the parent comments suggested would actually be quite cool: An alternative license where the "applicants" could ask for permission to use a picture, stating how they will use it. If the author accepts (using a 1-button click), a license will automatically be granted. Everything would still remain free though. And certain use-cases could be allowed automatically (e.g. "personal use" or "use for a non-profit").

It would remove ambiguities (because an explicit permission is granted), but everyting would still remain royalty-free. Plus, the authors would learn how their photos are being used. (I'm happy to give out photos for free, but I'm also happy if people tell me where they're being used.)

[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.