Free Artwork Online: Licenses, Attribution, and “Can I Use This Commercially?”
There’s no shortage of “free” artwork online—photos, illustrations, icons, textures, even music—but the word free is doing a lot of work. Some files are truly free to reuse for almost anything, while others are only free if you give credit, don’t edit them, don’t use them commercially, or share your changes under the same license.
If you’re building a website that earns money (ads, affiliate links, subscriptions, selling services), the key question isn’t “Is it free to download?” but “What does the license allow?” This article maps the common license types, what attribution really means, and a practical workflow to stay compliant without turning every blog post into a legal project.
“Free to download” vs “Free to use”
Most artwork is protected by copyright by default, which means you can’t reuse it publicly unless you have permission via a license (or it’s in the public domain). Creative Commons licenses exist to provide standardized permissions that tell you what you can do with a work under copyright law.
That’s why two images can both be called “free” on different sites, yet one can be used on an affiliate blog with minor attribution, while another cannot be used commercially at all. The difference is the license terms attached to the file, not the download button.
What “Commercial Use” Usually Means (For Websites)
In Creative Commons licensing, the “NC” (NonCommercial) term restricts use to noncommercial purposes only, which is a problem for any site monetized through ads, sponsorships, affiliate links, or sales. If a license includes “NC,” assume it’s not safe for a money-making website unless you get separate permission from the creator.
Licenses without “NC” (for example, CC BY, CC BY-SA, CC BY-ND) allow commercial use, but they may still require attribution and may impose extra rules such as share-alike or no-derivatives. So “commercial allowed” does not mean “do whatever you want.”
Creative Commons Licenses: The Practical Cheat Sheet
Creative Commons licenses are built from terms (BY, SA, NC, ND) that combine into common licenses. Since version 2.0, all Creative Commons licenses require attribution (“BY”), meaning you must credit the creator in the manner specified.
Here’s how the terms affect what you can do:
- CC BY: You can reuse and adapt the work (including commercially), but attribution is required.
- CC BY-SA: Commercial use is allowed, attribution is required, and adaptations must be shared under the same license (“share alike”).
- CC BY-ND: Commercial use is allowed, attribution is required, but you can only share unadapted copies (no derivatives).
- CC BY-NC: Attribution is required, but commercial use is not permitted.
- CC BY-NC-SA: Noncommercial only, attribution required, and adaptations must be shared under the same terms.
- CC BY-NC-ND: The most restrictive common CC license: noncommercial only and no derivatives, with attribution required.
Attribution: What You Actually Need to Do
For CC BY works (and other CC licenses with BY), attribution generally means giving appropriate credit, linking to the license, and indicating if changes were made. The good part: you can do this “in any reasonable manner,” which gives flexibility in how you present it on a website.
A practical website-friendly attribution pattern is: Title by Creator (Source link), licensed under License (license link), plus “Modified” if you edited it. This keeps you compliant while staying readable for normal users.
NoDerivatives (ND): The Hidden Trap
The “ND” (NoDerivatives) condition allows you to share the work only in unadapted form, which can be awkward for real websites. Common actions like cropping, color grading, adding text overlays, or combining images into a banner can be considered derivative adaptations.
If you need to edit visuals to match your branding (which is almost always), avoid ND-licensed assets and choose a license that explicitly allows adaptations (e.g., CC BY or CC BY-SA). This single decision prevents a lot of accidental non-compliance.
Public Domain and CC0: The Simplest Option (When It’s Real)
Public domain works (and works released under CC0) are generally the easiest to use because they are intended to remove copyright restrictions as much as legally possible. Even then, it’s still smart to keep a source link and notes, because “public domain” claims can be wrong or the uploader may not have had rights to dedicate the work.
Also note that “public domain” doesn’t automatically remove other risks such as trademark rights or privacy/publicity concerns with recognizable people. Licenses handle copyright permission, but they don’t necessarily eliminate every legal consideration around usage.
Stock Sites with Custom Licenses (Example: Pixabay)
Some popular “free stock” sites use their own license instead of Creative Commons. For example, Pixabay’s license allows use for free for commercial and noncommercial purposes, allows modification/adaptation, and does not require attribution (though it may be appreciated).
However, it also includes important restrictions, such as prohibiting the sale/redistribution of unaltered copies as stock content and placing limits around content with recognizable trademarks/brands for certain commercial uses. This is why “no attribution required” doesn’t mean “no rules.”
Finding Safe Assets Using Openverse (A Practical Workflow)
Openverse is a search portal for openly licensed content, and it’s useful because it lets you filter by whether you want commercial reuse and whether you want to modify/adapt the work. This is exactly the filtering you need if you run monetized websites and also need to resize/crop/brand your visuals.
In practical terms: decide your intended use first (commercial? edits?), then filter results to exclude licenses that block that usage (e.g., “NC” for commercial, “ND” for modifications). That turns “random Googling” into a repeatable pipeline that’s safer and faster.
Wikimedia Commons: Powerful, but Read the File Page
Wikimedia Commons can be a goldmine, but it’s not “one license fits all”; each file page shows its specific license and attribution requirements. The practical advantage is that Commons often provides ready-to-copy attribution for web use via its “Use this file on the web” tools, which helps you comply without manual formatting.
The rule here is simple: don’t treat “from Wikimedia” as the license—treat the individual file’s license as the source of truth, and store it with your project notes. That’s how you stay consistent when you publish at scale.
A Compliance Checklist (For Monetized Websites)
When publishing at scale (affiliate blogs, niche sites, landing pages), the goal is to reduce ambiguity and build a habit. Creative Commons licensing is designed to answer “What can I do with this work?” but only if you actually follow the terms.
- Confirm the license on the original source page (not a re-upload).
- If the site earns money, avoid “NC” unless you have separate written permission.
- If you need to crop/edit/overlay, avoid “ND”.
- Record attribution details at download time: title, author, source URL, license name + URL, and whether you modified it.
- Keep proof: screenshot/PDF of the license page or metadata at the time you downloaded it (licenses and pages can change).
Important Note
This article is educational and focuses on common licensing patterns and practical compliance habits, not legal advice. When a use case is high-risk (big brand, paid print runs, merchandise, recognizable people, trademark-heavy imagery), consider getting professional legal guidance or sourcing assets from providers with clear commercial indemnity terms.