As long as you make some changes or modifications it shouldn't be a problem, you just can't use them 'As is' and re-upload them to lets say a site like 'OGA', or have them in a saleable/redistributional format. As long as you make the changes or deriative there shouldn't be a problem with having them licensed under a CC0 or GPL license as its becomes your work. Thats how i understand it. I couldn't find anything that says you can't, but please let me know as i sometimes use pixabay for reference and stuff, so if i have missed something or if you could point me in the right direction, id appreciate it.

Maybe Medicinestorm could take a look if she has some time. :)

https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

Like most sites like Pixabay i would urge caution, because you cant always be 100% the uploaders have any rights to the image's they use. Its always a good idea to check and check again so you can be sure yourself that its good. If you have any doubts at all, then don't use an mage. :)

???

Unless this is some new new license change at pixabay, I've already taken a look at this. A similar concern was raised on the forum thread here a few months back. I think it's a pretty dirty move and I certainly won't be using pixabay moving forward, but the good news is they don't get to sneak into your project and change the license on assets already in use.

More directly addressing pixabay's change specifially, see the discussion on submissions derived from pixabay assets (before their license change) here and here.

TL;DR: Before 1-1-2019, pixabay used the CC0 license. pixabay's new stipulations do not apply to any OGA submission prior 2019. Any assets obtained from pixabay before their license change retain their CC0 status. CC0 cannot be revoked, so pixabay changing their license on CC0 assets is irrelevant. However, you should not download assets from pixabay today and treat them as if they are CC0, since they may not be the same assets as those that were available under the original CC0. Make sure the Published date on the pixabay page is before 1-1-2019.

P.S. If you do want to use pixabay's assets that are under the new license, you could do so safely in your project so long as:

• you don't post them on a stock photo or wallpaper platform. (Pff! Unless your project is called "We're like Stockimage.com, but different", I doubt this is a concern)
• you don't use assets with identifiable people, or portray people in a bad light or offensive nature (We don't really allow this on OGA either - see here - so not really a big change from anything you'd find here)
• you don't assume or imply endorsement by author or source (already one of the very few requirements of CC0, so I doubt that would ever be an issue)
• you don't use the asset unmodified. You must add value in some way. Kind of the opposite of the CC-BY-ND license; in this case, you MUST have a derivative in order to use it. :P

However, it is unclear if pixabay's ToS allows relicensing, and since OGA does not accept the Pixabay License as one of the available options, we may not be allowed to host any derivatives of assets under pixabay's new license, as that would require the license to change to a different license. I'll have to look into it more to see if their license must be inherited by all derivatives.

https://pixabay.com/forum/official-pixabay-news-2/the-pixabay-license-78...

TL;DR: all images prior to the new license are indeed cc0, good luck finding which

(posting images just incase they delete them too, but you can probably use wayback machine)

Simon says they don't want to let people know which assets are CC0 because "abuses" were occurring. Anybody know what sort of abuses the Pixabay contributors were experiencing? I am having a hard time thinking of ways one could actually abuse CC0. User implying warranty or endorsement of author? Images of actual persons? Everything else is permitted.

"...and you set the license to CC(whatever), you already have trouble."

True, but not because you published your game with a pixabay asset. The trouble is from changing the license from pixabay's to CC(whatever). I was never recommending (and specificially expressed concern against) changing the license.

It's unfortunate pixabay staff and some contributors view the sale or hosting of CC0 assets on other sites as "abuse". I can understand some users not truly understanding the implications before submitting work under CC0 and feeling remorse over it, but the correct response should not be to attempt to force CC0 to be something it is not:

A: "You can have this candy bar. It's free. Do what you want with it. You can even share it."

Q: "Really? Cool. I think I'll share it with my friend."

A: "NO! you can't do that! We don't want you to share it with other people!"

Q: "...!? Then why did you explicitly state that I am allowed to share it?"

A: "It seemed easier to say it that way."

Q: "Are you going to stop telling people they can do things you don't even want them to do, then?"

A: "We never told people that in the first place."

Q: "You just told ME that!"

A: "Yeah, but it would be really rude of you to tell people we told you that. because we never really felt that way to begin with. We were just saying it, you know? We didn't mean it. Stop abusing us!"

"Please be aware that while all Images and Videos on Pixabay are free to use for commercial and non-commercial purposes, depicted items in the Images or Videos, such as identifiable people, logos, brands, etc. may be subject to additional copyrights, property rights, privacy rights, trademarks etc. and may require the consent of a third party or the license of these rights - particularly for commercial applications."

It's free but not free.

Doublespeak 1984 style.

Luckily there are strong precedents against companies retroactively enforcing license agreement changes.  The legally binding contract is the one agreed to at that specific time, not whichever might exist in 25 years from now.

That's a shame. But at least they don't try to cheat you and tell straight it's some murky "content license" (I'm not a laywer, so all custom licensed assets are discarded immediately), in contrast explicitly saying "copyright-free (something)" like some music authors do on youtube and then in fine print on their website you see it's something similar to CC-BY-NC or "for personal use only".

> The legally binding contract

But practically they (or even some unrelated copyright troll) just DCMA your game out of Steam and good luck talking to Valve support and trying to prove you are not a camel.

They updated their terms April 4, 2023 https://pixabay.com/service/terms/:

3. CC0 License

Some of the Content made available for download on the Service is subject to and licensed under the Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license ("CC0 Content"). CC0 Content on the Service is any content which lists a "Published date" prior to January 9, 2019. This means that to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law, the authors of that work have dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the CC0 Content worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. Subject to the CC0 License Terms, the CC0 Content can be used for all personal and commercial purposes without attributing the author/ content owner of the CC0 Content or Pixabay.

---

Luckily there are strong precedents against companies retroactively enforcing license agreement changes.

cc0 gives you the freedom to distribute it under more restrictive terms

"Please be aware that while all Images and Videos on Pixabay are free to use for commercial and non-commercial purposes, depicted items in the Images or Videos, such as identifiable people, logos, brands, etc. may be subject to additional copyrights, property rights, privacy rights, trademarks etc. and may require the consent of a third party or the license of these rights - particularly for commercial applications."

That is generally the case, maybe not the "additional copyrights", but the rest definitely. Creative commons is based on copyright and gives you only freedoms regarding copyright.

If you use something commercially you also have to follow commercial property protections (patents, trademarks …)

The right of one's own picture is a personal right derived from human dignity. If you allow somebody to photograph you that permission is always in a certain context. You can put images into a different context via captions and modifications (especially porn captions, fake nudes and deep fakes). In the worst case that can be defamition, which is a crime in some countries.

You can neither do anything else that constitutes a crime.