Every blog post needs an image, and every image carries a licence. Most small teams solve this by typing a phrase into Google Images and right-clicking — which is how businesses end up with a four-figure demand letter from a stock agency two years later.

The rules are not complicated once you know which categories exist. Here is the practical version.

The four licences you will actually meet

  • All rights reserved (most search results) — not usable without a paid licence or written permission, even with a credit line.
  • CC0 / Public Domain — no permission needed, no credit required (though crediting is polite). Safest option.
  • CC BY — free to use, including commercially, if you credit the creator and link the licence.
  • CC BY-SA — same as CC BY, but if you alter the image the altered version must carry the same licence. Fine for most blogs; avoid for logos and brand assets.

Anything with NC (non-commercial) or ND (no derivatives) in the name is a trap for a business site: NC rules out advertising and a business blog usually counts, and ND rules out cropping.

Where to look, in order

  1. Your own photos. A phone photo of your desk, product or workspace is more distinctive than any stock image and carries no licence risk.
  2. CC0 libraries — StockSnap, Pexels, Unsplash (check each image's licence page; both have moved some content to paid tiers).
  3. Wikimedia Commons — huge, well documented, but quality varies and many files need credit.
  4. Paid stock — a single month of a stock subscription costs less than one hour of a lawyer's time. If you publish weekly, this is the cheapest option per post.

How to record the licence (do this once per image)

Keep a simple sheet or JSON file next to your images with: file name, source URL, creator, licence, and the date you downloaded it. When someone asks in two years, you have the answer in ten seconds. This is exactly how large publishers protect themselves, and it costs nothing.

Credit lines that actually satisfy the licence

A correct CC BY credit includes the title, the creator, the licence and a link. "Photo: Unsplash" is not enough. A workable pattern:

Photo: Jane Doe / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0 — with the licence name linked to the deed page.

Five mistakes that cause claims

  1. Using an image from a Google Images result because it "looked free".
  2. Crediting the photo but not checking that the licence allows commercial use.
  3. Assuming a Pinterest or Tumblr repost is the original source.
  4. Removing a watermark and calling it a design choice.
  5. Using a competitor's product photo to illustrate a comparison page.

What to do if a claim arrives

Do not ignore it and do not argue on social media. Take the image down immediately, replace it, gather your licence record if you have one, and reply in writing. Most agencies settle quickly when the image is removed and the site is not a major publisher. Having a record of where each image came from is the difference between a nuisance and an expensive problem.

Quick answers

Can I use an image if I link back to the source? Only if the licence says so. Linking is not a substitute for permission on an all-rights-reserved image.

Can I use a photo of a product I review? You can photograph it yourself. Using the manufacturer's press photo usually requires their press-kit terms, which often exclude criticism — check before publishing.

Do AI-generated images need a licence? No stock licence applies, but most tools' terms require you to have the rights to the output and some prohibit certain uses. Keep a record of the tool and prompt.

A worked example

Say you are writing about studio lighting and want a photo of a softbox. You find one on Wikimedia Commons: "Softbox in studio.jpg", CC BY-SA 4.0, by a named photographer.

Your record: filename, the Commons page URL, creator name, licence "CC BY-SA 4.0", download date, and where it is used (article slug).

Your credit: Photo: A. Photographer / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0, with the licence name linked to the deed.

Your crop: allowed. The cropped version is a derivative, so the page must keep the same licence for that image — which it does, because the credit line is already there.

What would break it: pasting it into an ad with the credit removed, or uploading a modified copy to a stock library. Both are outside the licence, and both happen more often than anyone admits.