Stock Footage Licensing for YouTube: What Pexels, Pixabay, and Shutterstock Actually Allow
You found the perfect clip on Pexels. You dropped it into your edit. The video is monetized. Now you're wondering if you just made a mistake.
This is one of the most common questions YouTube creators search — and most of the answers online are either incomplete or wrong. This guide covers exactly what each major stock footage source allows, where the gray zones are, and what happens if you get it wrong.
Why This Actually Matters for YouTube
Copyright issues on YouTube are not theoretical. YouTube's Content ID system automatically scans uploaded videos against a database of registered media. If footage you used is registered — even if you paid for it under the wrong license — you can receive a copyright claim that strips your monetization, or a copyright strike that puts your channel at risk.
Three strikes and YouTube terminates your channel. Beyond Content ID, footage rights holders can file manual DMCA takedowns. If the footage appears in a sponsored video or a video promoting a product or service, the risk is higher because the rights holder has more to gain from enforcement.
The Main License Types Explained
| License Type | Commercial OK? | Attribution Required? | Modification OK? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Royalty-Free | Usually yes | No | Usually yes |
| Rights-Managed | Per license only | Depends | Depends |
| CC0 (Public Domain) | Yes | No | Yes |
| CC BY | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| CC BY-NC | No | Yes | Yes |
| Editorial Use Only | No | Depends | Usually no |
Important clarification: "Royalty-free" does not mean free to download. It means you pay once and can use the asset without paying per use. Many royalty-free libraries cost $10–$500+ per clip.
Pexels — What You Can Actually Do
Pexels uses its own license, not Creative Commons. The Pexels License is permissive and creator-friendly.
What is allowed:
- Commercial use — including fully monetized YouTube videos
- Use in sponsored content and brand deals
- Modification, cropping, color grading
- No attribution required
What is not allowed:
- Reselling the raw footage files as stock footage
- Using a person's likeness to imply their endorsement of a product, service, or ideology
- Using footage to train AI models or create NFTs
Verdict for YouTube: Safe for standard content. If your video includes a Pexels clip of a person and you are also promoting a product, add a disclaimer that the person is a model and does not endorse the product.
Pixabay — What You Can Actually Do
What is allowed:
- Commercial use, including monetized YouTube
- No attribution required by default
- Modification and editing
The important caveat: Since 2019, Pixabay allows individual contributors to opt into requiring attribution for their specific files. Before using any Pixabay clip in a public video, check the individual asset page. Takes 10 seconds. Do it.
Verdict for YouTube: Safe. Check the per-file page before using.
Shutterstock — Standard vs Enhanced License
Standard License: Covers YouTube videos up to 500,000 total views per video. Suitable for most YouTube creators.
Enhanced License: Unlimited distribution, including viral content. Significantly more expensive.
The trap: If you buy a Standard License and your video hits 500,001 views, you are technically in violation. Shutterstock does not retroactively enforce this aggressively against small creators, but it is a real exposure for channels that regularly produce content with potential reach.
Pricing reality: Shutterstock video clips run $79–$199 per clip a la carte, or $149–$299/month for subscription plans.
Verdict for YouTube: Safe if you are a small channel with the Standard License. If your videos consistently hit high view counts, use the Enhanced License.
Getty Images and iStock — The Editorial Trap
Getty Images is the most restrictive major source for YouTube creators, and it catches people regularly.
A significant portion of Getty's catalog is marked "Editorial Use Only." This means the footage can only be used in news reporting, documentaries, and educational content — not in commercial videos or monetized entertainment. A monetized YouTube channel making general content is commercial use. Getty clips marked editorial cannot be used there.
The problem is that the editorial designation is not always obvious at a glance. Creators who find a clip that looks right and download it without checking the license flag have received DMCA claims.
Verdict for YouTube: High risk for creators who do not carefully read each clip's license type. Verify the license on every single clip.
→ Try ScenePull free — all assets are pre-cleared for commercial useArtgrid and Storyblocks — The Premium Subscription Tier
Artgrid: $200/year. Genuinely unlimited commercial use with no view-count thresholds. High production quality, curated library. A legitimate option for creators who use a lot of footage and want clean licensing without worrying about per-clip rules.
Storyblocks: $165–$400/year. Unlimited downloads with commercial use rights. Larger catalog than Artgrid, more variable quality.
Verdict: Both are legitimate and worth considering at production volume. The annual cost is predictable and neither has the view-count pitfalls of Shutterstock Standard.
The Gray Zones Creators Keep Getting Wrong
"I credited the creator, so I'm covered." Attribution is not a license. Adding a credit in your description does not convert a non-commercial license into a commercial one, and it does not give you rights you do not have.
"It's only for YouTube, not a commercial project." A monetized YouTube channel is commercial use. Advertising revenue, channel memberships, affiliate links in descriptions — all of this makes your YouTube content commercial. Editorial-only footage cannot be used here.
"I found it on Google Images." Google Images does not grant usage rights. It indexes content from across the web. The footage appearing in search results tells you nothing about whether you have permission to use it.
"The clip is from the 1980s, so copyright must have expired." Video copyright does not expire quickly. In the US, works created after 1978 are protected for the life of the author plus 70 years. A clip from 1985 will remain under copyright until at least 2055.
How ScenePull Handles Licensing Automatically
The consistent theme across everything above: licensing requires per-clip verification. You cannot assume a source is safe — you need to check each asset against its specific license terms every time.
ScenePull removes this step from the workflow entirely. You paste your video script. ScenePull analyzes each section and matches it with relevant video clips and images sourced from Pexels and Pixabay — both cleared for commercial use, no attribution required by default. Every asset you get back is pre-cleared for monetized YouTube content.
There is no per-clip license checking because the sourcing layer handles it before the asset reaches you. No gray zones, no editorial-only traps, no view-count thresholds to track. For creators who make content regularly, the time savings matter — but the more important thing is the reduced risk. One wrong clip in a video with 200,000 views can cost you the monetization on that video, or worse.
Quick Reference: Stock Footage Licensing for YouTube
| Source | Commercial OK? | Attribution Required? | Cost | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pexels | Yes | No | Free | Low |
| Pixabay | Yes | Check per file | Free | Low |
| Shutterstock Standard | Yes (under 500k views) | No | $79-$199/clip or subscription | Medium |
| Shutterstock Enhanced | Yes (unlimited) | No | Higher | Low |
| Getty Editorial | No | Yes | $150-$500+/clip | High if misused |
| Artgrid | Yes (unlimited) | No | $200/yr | Low |
| ScenePull | Yes | No | Free trial, then from $9/mo | Low (pre-cleared) |
Try ScenePull Free
Paste your script, get commercial-ready footage in seconds. Every asset pre-cleared — no license checking required.