-1

Say I have images in my WordPress theme that I got from Unsplash or Pexels a year or so ago, when their license was more permissive (GPL compatible).

Fast forward to today: their licenses changed.

Do I need to update the license on my theme for these images, or do the old license for these images still apply (since I've downloaded them at the time where their license was, say CC0)?

I get that with certain OS libraries you can just use the version where their license was different (v1.0.0 was GPL, but v2.1.0 is MIT), but with images, it's a bit different since it's still the same image (no versioning aside the date of download).

Are license changes in this case retroactive?

dingo_d
  • 99
  • 1
  • 2
    It is possible to release the same software, image, and so on, under different licenses. Just because the version from 2017 and the 2018 are pixel for pixel identical, does not mean that the license is identical. – Brandin Nov 29 '18 at 10:35
  • See also: Is it possible for Linux developers to retroactively “pull their code” from Linux? – Brandin Nov 29 '18 at 10:35
  • When you downloaded the image (say, in 2017), did it come with any license statement to say "this is licensed under the following conditions..."? – Brandin Nov 29 '18 at 10:36
  • 1
    When I downloaded it the Unsplash licensed all its images as CC0, then they changed it to 'Unsplash' license later on. I don't think there was any explicit mentioning on the image itself. So if I understood you correctly, the licenses are not retroactive (in general case) – dingo_d Nov 29 '18 at 10:48
  • No I'm asking what proof you have that the file you downloaded was actually licensed under CC0. For example, if I download some GPL software, there is a file which says that it is licensed that way. – Brandin Nov 29 '18 at 13:24
  • Not 100% sure but I think that they had a license page where they said all the images on their site are CC0 – dingo_d Nov 29 '18 at 14:20
  • A page on the Internet, that was not distributed with the image or software, is not a reliable statement of the license. The page could have changed in the meantime (which seems to have happened in this case), or it could go down completely. Some software at least says "this is licensed under .... license. See (this page) for the full license text." but at least they tell you what the license is. If you have to go somewhere else to determine what the license is, then you have no way to prove under what terms you were permitted to copy and redistribute those images. – Brandin Nov 30 '18 at 09:15
  • Yeah, I get that this could be the issue. Even though we have the wayback machine :D – dingo_d Nov 30 '18 at 11:02

1 Answers1

1

While pixabay specifies CC0, both Unsplash and Pexels show less formal license information that allows any use as long as it isn't in direct competition.

All three sites use a license that is more permissive than the GPL, if any images were previously available under a different license, the current one would appear to be less restrictive.

If the current license terms conflict in some way with your usage, it will be a matter of "Can you prove that you got the images at an earlier time under different terms?" If you can't prove when you got the images and the terms you agreed to at the time, you are better off adjusting to the current terms, either by adjusting your credits or replacing the relevant images.

Your description sounds like you should have no issues with the current terms of either site. While neither site requires credit to be given, it is appreciated. Personally, I would update the credits to reflect the current terms.

sambler
  • 1,505
  • 6
  • 6
  • I have the credits, and I have the svn history to prove when the image was first used, so I should be good either way. – dingo_d Nov 30 '18 at 07:52
  • 1
    @dingo_d: Do you also have evidence what the license terms were when you started using the images? That is also crucial in proving what terms apply to your use of the images. – Bart van Ingen Schenau Nov 30 '18 at 16:15