Is it safe to use a photo from pixabay on your cover?

[Vidya]

Someone on KB once warned that some photos on pixabay were under copyright while masquerading as free.

I want to use this image:

https://pixabay.com/en/bindi-asian-jewellery-beauty-2416042/

would it be safe to use this? It says:

CC0 Creative Commons
Free for commercial use
No attribution required

the thing is, I’ve also found this site offers pics of famous Indian actresses such as Priyanka Chopra:

https://pixabay.com/en/priyanka-chopra-beauty-fashion-1748203/

this too says:

CC0 Creative Commons
Free for commercial use
No attribution required

How is this legal? Can we really use a pic of some celebrity on our covers or anywhere? This can’t be right.

Anyway i’m more interested in, can I safely use this image:

https://pixabay.com/en/bindi-asian-jewellery-beauty-2416042/

[Post-Crisis D]

First, check their FAQ: https://pixabay.com/en/blog/posts/public-domain-images-what-is-allowed-and-what-is-4/

I believe you would need a model release in order to use that photo on a cover.

Next question, and this is an important one, can you be sure that the person who uploaded the photograph is the actual photographer and/or copyright holder of that photograph?

As for the Priyanka Chopra image, I believe that is a painting rather than a photograph.  Still, if it's for commercial use, my guess is that you would still need a model (or other type of) release from the person depicted.

The bottom line is, when in doubt, run away.

I am not a lawyer though so none of this should be construed as legal advice and you should consult an actual professional in the field for legal advice regarding this or any similar situation.

[Penang]

Unless the person who uploaded the image can provide you with a copy of the model release, I would NOT use it. Pixabay has tons of images that are created with stock images where the uploader holds the license to use that, but you wouldn't.

[Denise]

That's scary.

The model release thing is a problem.

Unsplash (which is a lot more serious) is another site that doesn't have model release forms. I think it can be wonderful for backgrounds, but you can't use people in it.  We also need to be careful with landmarks. Unsplash for example has a ton of images with the Disney castle. Nope, you can't use it.

https://unsplash.com/

[Al Macy (aka TromboneAl)]

A while ago, I used this image from Pixabay in my newsletter:



I had never seen the Banksy painting, so imagine my surprise when it (slightly different, actually) showed up on the news:



IOW, I don't think the uploader had the copyright.

[Pandorra]

I don't use a lot of faces/people but it isn't too hard to edit faces for a different enough look that the original isn't recognizable... TBH, if my books ever get so popular that someone complains, I can prbly afford a cover by then anyway.. I have also been playing with a lot of software that lets me create and pose my own models lately  .. thinking I may start down that road if I need a model in the future.

Besides, you have no clue where your cover artist gets their images a lot of times, I see quite a few pro covers with images that came from CC.

[okey dokey]

Copyright a building?
I don't think so.
Perhaps you can trademark a building so you can't BUILD a duplicate.
But a copyright has a time limit, which means it would expire at some point.

[Post-Crisis D]

In the U.S., buildings can be protected by copyright as of December 1, 1990.  Buildings created before that date are apparently not protected.

If taking a photo from a public place, you generally don't need permission to take a photograph.  But it can fall under copyright infringement if you trespass on private property to take a photo of a building created on or after December 1, 1990.

Trademark can also come into play if the building design is trademarked or if there are trademarked elements appearing in the photo.

The image can not be used in such a way as to imply endorsement.

For commercial use, I believe you would still need a property release from the property owner.

If you want to use a building on a book cover, it is perhaps best to consult with an IP attorney first.

[FridayRaccoon]

I use pixabay pretty often and the main thing to look out for is inconsistency. I found one account that had illustrations that look very professonal along with ones that arent. I contacted the owner and he deleted the account very quickly.
The best option is to pick a photograph from a trustworthy photographer. (that has hundreds of other images)

That being said, I think the photo you picked is perfectly fine to use. Now you just need to contact the photographer and ask for a model release. (just click on “message” on his profile.)
I found his facebook too, if you are worried that somebody else could have stolen and uploaded those photos. https://www.facebook.com/digi.snapper
He was posting on facebook less than 30 minutes ago so that might be a faster option for the model release. 

[AnneRTan]

Another to consider is that the photos might be free now, but if the photographer wants to charge for it later, you make have to change your cover or pay him for the rights. AppSumo has a sale annually for 100 photos at Depositphotos for $49. I always grab a pack during the sale.

[Melody Simmons]

I prefer using paid and reputable stock sites vs free image sites.  This is always a good reminder for me:

https://petapixel.com/2013/06/18/photographer-sues-buzzfeed-for-3-6m-for-using-photo-without-permission/  (image from Flickr)

I can't find any news article on problems with Pixabay but I did see a couple of posts in other forums from people receiving lawsuits for using an image from Pixabay and asking for advice about it - just Google around and see.

[She-la-te-da]

The answer is, it depends. If the person uploading the image has the right to do so, then you're probably okay. The trick is knowing how to determine if that's so. People upload stuff all the time that can't be used. Images of famous actors are probably still copyrighted to the photographer. Images of Barbie dolls, Star Wars reinactors/cosplayers and the like are not safe to use. Some well-known landmarks are either copyright or trademarked, or both, so not safe to use. I read somewhere that the Space Needle in Seattle can't be used without permission.

As far as someone coming along later and demanding money, you should be protected under the license you downloaded the image under. But, IANAL, so to be very sure, ask someone who is.

[Post-Crisis D]

I read somewhere that the Space Needle in Seattle can't be used without permission.

The Space Needle name and design is protected by trademark.  I am not a lawyer, but given that it was built for the 1962 World's Fair, being pre-1990 would mean it wouldn't qualify for copyright protection in the U.S.  Maybe.  Again, I'm not a lawyer so don't take this as legal advice.

[Al Macy (aka TromboneAl)]

In 2004, the Space Needle Corp. sued McCain Snack Foods in the Western District for circulating a print advertisement featuring a photograph of the Seattle skyline with one little alteration — it replaced the Space Needle’s observation deck and restaurant with a giant onion ring.

and ...

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-using-a-space-needle-likeness-in-a-logo-copyrig-1758568.html

[dgcasey]

I read somewhere that the Space Needle in Seattle can't be used without permission.

I'll give you a good example of a building or landmark that is off-limits. Try taking a night time picture of the Eiffel  Tower. If the local constabulary sees you do it, instant ticket and fine. Now, usually you won't get in any trouble just taking the picture, unless you are seen by a gendarme that decides he doesn't like you. The trouble comes when you post the picture on your Instagram or Facebook or Pinterest. Then you can be sued and the French are quite serious about it. You will get a cease and desist letter about the photo.

Now, apparently this has never been tested in court, so no one knows what will happen if and when it finds itself in front of the judge. Anyone want to be a guinea pig? And just to clarify, it is only the night time photos that will get you in trouble. It's not the tower itself that is copyrighted, it's the light show that is only on at night. During the day you can snap and post to your heart's content.

[okey dokey]

If a building can by copyrighted, how long does the copyright last?
The life of the building plus 75 years?
Or what?
I can see Hollywood going nuts over that.
Oh no! Steve McQueen can't speed past that building because it's copyrighted.

And if the Paris cops spot my photo of the tower I took on my last trip there, they'll have to come after me.

[catowned]

When thinking about the inconvenience of image copyright and permissions, remember that your books are copyright protected works of art, and that you want people to respect the copyright and not distribute your work without your consent.

It's the same for the lightshow that's on the Eiffel Tower. The building as art is public domain. Post photos of it not illuminated all you want. But the lightshow was added in 1985 and will be copyright protected for 70 years after the end of the year of the artist's death (or 100 years after if he dies in active service), so a long time from now.
Publication of any photo that shows the illuminated tower requires permission from the Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel.
The society has been lenient except for commercial use. That's why you see a lot of tourist shots, and fewer highly targeted advertising and film shots. The film industry is used to paying for use of trademarked images in films.

[Feliz]

This thread is so useful. I just had no idea and assumed all photos there were fair game, and I use Pixabay a whole lot. This sucks because I can't afford paid ones at this time. I'll have to look and see about the ones I've used. I only have one published book, but it does use two Pixabay models (a masked person and a hooded person). I do have the standard image disclaimer in my book contents about the models not having any affiliation and what have you, but I guess that isn't enough. I now worry some models might not want to be portrayed as certain characters, too, due to their personal beliefs. And just when I recently went wide and even submitted my book for audio with this same cover, too. With hardly any sales except for plenty of downloads during the KU free promo, good luck to whoever wants to sue me. Though, said downloads are a done deal, so those copies would still be around if I ever had to change the cover.

But thanks for the info, guys. I'll have to research this some more to avoid issues.

[Miranda]

This thread is so useful. I just had no idea and assumed all photos there were fair game, and I use Pixabay a whole lot.

Yeah, think of it this way: Photographs, graphics, art, logos, and fonts are all the work of other people. To say that any of them were fair game to use would be like someone saying that our books are fair game for anyone to use/read/print/give away. Obviously that's not the case. And whether we give away the book for free or not is up to us (the creator and owner), not a random person who happened to see it.

Please understand that I'm not trying to "pick on" you or anything, just a general thought for everybody.

The reason I wanted to write this post is because I see a lot of people (I'm not saying on here, just in general) who think nothing of using a commercial font without paying for it, or using stock photos without buying them (so they're either low-resolution or still have watermarks), or just grabbing an illustration that they liked without contacting the artist. Hell, it's not just individuals; when I was in Vietnam for business, I saw a game show that was on national TV that used a tune as their opening music from Audiojungle and they didn't even pay for it. Why do I know this? Because when the music played, I could hear a robotic voice repeat "Audiojungle" over and over every few seconds -- this is an audio watermark, and it is a clear indicator that they downloaded the Audiojungle sample and used that without authorization, instead of purchasing the right to use the music.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, we should consider the things we're doing when we take other people's work to use for commercial purposes. Are these things given freely? If yes, are we sure it's actually the owner? If yes, do we want to risk them changing their mind and coming after us? It's not like we're using the image or music or font for a children's concert at school, which they may (MAY) forgive us for. We're using those things for commercial purposes. Even if we were in the right that yes those were given freely and yes they were from the owner, we still have the headache to deal with if and when they change their mind.

At the end of the day, I find that using things that are paid for from legitimate sites (whether stock photos, fonts, whatever else) to be the best option for one's comfort and peace of mind. Also, better save receipts and such just in case. 

[Bill Hiatt]

I read somewhere that the Space Needle in Seattle can't be used without permission.

The Space Needle name and design is protected by trademark.  I am not a lawyer, but given that it was built for the 1962 World's Fair, being pre-1990 would mean it wouldn't qualify for copyright protection in the U.S.  Maybe.  Again, I'm not a lawyer so don't take this as legal advice.

There is a difference between trademark and copyright--but for us, it's probably a distinction without a difference. Neither can be used without permission.

[Bill Hiatt]

I heartily agree that the best course is to use one of the established photo sites. You'll pay more, but you can proceed with confidence. For example, I use Shutterstock. If the photo is only available for editorial and not commercial use, it is clearly labeled as such, and people wanting to license such images have to click to acknowledge they know it's only for editorial use. If it's for commercial use, Shutterstock guarantees that they have appropriate model releases on file for all identifiable people. The company also checks pretty well for copyrighted or trademarked elements in the background. [I used amused to notice in one series of photos that what looked at first glance like a logo on a shirt was actually a tape X (in appropriately matched colors) to cover the actual logo on the shirt.] Shutterstock is very strict with photographers who want to sell through it and apparently rejects dubious images all the time.

[David VanDyke]

While this rule may have exceptions, I haven't found any:

If the site has the word "bay" in it, it's a pirate site.

My shaky memory tells me it goes back to the original well-known Pirate Bay site in the early days of the Internet, yes back when style manuals told us "internet" should be a proper noun, LOL.

But seriously: anything with either the word "torrent" or "bay" is highly suspect. Those are codewords meant to attract users of pirate sites.

[Feliz]

Miranda, I understand, which was why I took twelve screenshots of the uploaders' profiles from both Pixabay and FreeImages.com that state the photos are free to use commercially, as well as the images themselves showing the uploaders on the same page, with the date/time showing on my Windows task bar, and the terms of use/license. I know that it's not the end-all solution to avoid any potential lawsuit, but it was the best I could do for what is essentially too late in my case. My first and only professional publication has already been distributed, and GoodReads apparently has a policy that is against changing covers for catalogued books, so this cover will be sticking around indefinitely beyond my current control. My cover has two models, a strip of paper, and a free font. Unfortunately, I can't stop any sudden lawsuit over what isn't even wrong. I didn't steal anything. All I did was layer the free stock images together and designed my own cover with FX. If the face-shown model I used (the other one is masked and impossible to identify) later decides that he does not feel comfortable portraying an asexual gay teen fighting to be with the love of his life who is a zombie in what is a clean romance, then so be it. I cannot stop him from coming after me for what isn't listed as a negative depiction per the sites' terms. For what it's worth, I do have the standard image disclaimer of the models not being affiliated with my work, which is inside the eBook in question and on my website.

Anyway, once I become more exposed and can afford better marketing, I'll most certainly go with the paid stuff like Shutterstock and the like. I just can't afford to at this time, especially for a word count of 11K words that's only had one sale and many free downloads that I can't exactly have deleted.

If these sites are doing anything illegal (I haven't noticed but could be wrong), then they need to be shut down ASAP.

Nevertheless, Miranda, thank you for your post. It's still good to be aware of all of this and take whatever precautions we can.