Free stock photo licences for designers, compared (2026)

Unsplash, Pexels and Pixabay all let you use their photos for free and without credit, and all three allow edits. The differences are in what each one forbids. This article compares the three licence pages as they read on 28 October 2026, with a focus on what matters when a photo ends up in a client’s website, ad or brand. I’m a designer, not a lawyer, so treat this as a reading guide and not legal advice.

If you’re choosing plugins for getting these photos into Figma, see the Figma plugins I use.

The three licences side by side

	Unsplash	Pexels	Pixabay
Free to use	Yes	Yes	Yes
Attribution	Not required, appreciated	Not required, welcome	Not required, appreciated
Edit the photo	Yes	Yes	Yes
Commercial use	Stated: commercial and noncommercial	Lists websites, shops, apps, ads, templates you sell	Not stated as a general grant on the summary page
Sell it unchanged	Not addressed	Not allowed	Not allowed on a standalone basis
Competing or reposting	No compiling to replicate a similar or competing service	No redistributing on other stock photo or wallpaper platforms	Not covered on the summary page
Logos and brands in the photo	Not mentioned	Don’t imply endorsement by people or brands	No commercial use of recognisable trademarks, logos or brands
People in the photo	Not mentioned	Not in a bad or offensive light	Not in an immoral or illegal use
Use as a trademark	Not mentioned	Not allowed	Not allowed

“Not mentioned” means the licence page doesn’t say, which is different from “allowed”.

Unsplash

The Unsplash License is the shortest of the three. It says images are free to use for commercial and noncommercial purposes, with no need to ask the photographer or Unsplash, and that you can download, copy, modify and distribute them. Attribution isn’t required.

The only restriction the page states is that you can’t compile Unsplash images to replicate a similar or competing service. It doesn’t say anything about selling unmodified copies, trademarks, or model and property releases. That is why the licence is easy to read but doesn’t answer every client question: the silence on people and logos doesn’t mean a photo with a recognisable face or a brand on it is safe to use in an ad.

Pexels

Pexels is the most specific. It says all photos and videos are free to use, lists the uses it covers (websites, shops, blogs, apps, templates you sell, ads and marketing campaigns, plus print and social media) and says you can modify the photos. Attribution isn’t required.

It then lists what you can’t do:

• Show identifiable people in a bad light or in a way that is offensive.
• Sell unaltered copies, for example as a poster or other product, unless you change the photo first.
• Imply that people or brands in the photo endorse your product.
• Use a photo as part of a trademark, which Pexels extends to design marks, trade names, business names and service marks.
• Redistribute or sell the photos on other stock photo or wallpaper platforms.

If you want the licence you can explain to a client in one minute, this is the one.

Pixabay

Pixabay’s licence summary says you can use content for free, without attributing the author, and modify it. It doesn’t use the words “commercial use” as a general grant on the summary page, and says that only the full Content License in its Terms is legally binding, so read that for anything that matters.

The summary’s prohibitions are the strictest of the three on brands:

• You can’t sell or distribute content on a standalone basis, which it defines as no creative effort applied and the content staying substantially as it appears on the site.
• You can’t use content with recognisable trademarks, logos or brands commercially for goods or services, and printing it on merchandise for sale is named as an example.
• You can’t use content in an immoral, illegal, misleading or deceptive way, especially content showing recognisable people.
• You can’t use content as part of a trademark, design mark, trade name, business name or service mark.

It also puts the check on you: you are responsible for whether you need a third party’s consent or licence for rights such as copyright, trademark, privacy or property.

What to check before a photo goes into client work

The licence covers the file, so the risks sit in the picture itself.

1. Look for faces. A recognisable person is where Pexels and Pixabay both draw lines, and Unsplash doesn’t mention it. For ads, packaging or a brand page, pick a photo without identifiable people.
2. Look for logos and brands. A visible logo, product or branded packaging is the Pixabay restriction and the Pexels endorsement rule. Crop it out or choose another photo.
3. Change it before you sell it. If a photo becomes part of something you sell, such as a template or a mockup pack, add real creative work rather than reselling the original.
4. Never turn it into a logo. Pexels and Pixabay both bar use as part of a trademark. Design your own mark.
5. Keep a record. Save the photo URL, the photographer’s name and the day you checked the licence page, because none of the three pages shows a revision date.

Credit is optional on all three, but it costs nothing and is a good habit when a client’s team will ever need to trace where an image came from.

Which one to start with

For a client-facing project where you want clear rules, start with Pexels because it names the uses and the limits. Use Unsplash when its licence is enough for the job and you have already checked the photo. Use Pixabay with extra care around brands and logos, and read the full Content License before anything high-stakes. If a client’s brand depends on a photo, a paid licence from a stock library or a photographer you hire removes most of these questions.

For the mockup files that go with a brand project, see free mockup licences for brand designers.