Which stock footage is safe for a monetized YouTube channel?
We checked the licences of the major free and paid footage libraries, the main public domain archives and the big museum open-access programmes, and read YouTube's own monetization and Content ID pages. Some pages blocked our reader or hid their licence text, including Shutterstock, Pond5, five of the museums, and the licence pop-ups at Mixkit and Videezy. Those rows are marked "Not verified" or "Unclear", or name what we relied on instead. Here is what each one allows on a channel that earns ad revenue, and where the traps are.
The short answer: there are two tests
Most guides only cover the first one.
- The licence test. Does the library allow its clip inside a video that earns money? For most big libraries the answer is yes, with conditions: edit the clip into a new work, keep it out of the uses the licence bars (Pexels and Pixabay bar political use of any clip, with or without people in it, and showing people as ill or on medication), and do not imply that people or brands shown endorse you. Keep proof of where each clip came from as well, so you can answer a claim.
- The YouTube test. Is the video itself allowed to earn? YouTube's reused content rules sit outside copyright. Its policy page says they are "not based on copyright, permission, or fair use", and the review covers the channel as a whole. A fully licensed video made of stock clips with thin narration can still be refused monetization.
A clean licence is necessary. It is not enough on its own.
Free footage libraries
Free does not mean unconditional. Pexels and Pixabay use almost the same terms, and both read "Standalone" use broadly: a clip used as it is, or changed only with a filter, a colour change, resizing or cropping, still counts as Standalone, and Standalone distribution is not allowed. Cutting clips into a narrated video with other media and your own editing makes a new work, which both allow.
| Source | Monetized use | Credit | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pexelsphotos and video | Conditions | Not required | Edit clips into a new work (the Standalone rule above). No clip may be used in a political context, with or without people in it; the terms include any use "in connection with any political party or viewpoint". People in clips may not be shown as suffering from or medicating for a physical or mental illness. Neither rule has a disclaimer exception. No implying that people or brands shown endorse you. Terms last updated November 15, 2024. |
| Pixabayphotos, video, music | Conditions | Not required | Same Standalone and sensitive-use rules as Pexels. Music is the trap: Pixabay's FAQ says some contributors register their free tracks in Content ID. Download the licence certificate where a track offers one; for other tracks keep the download link, file name and licence summary. The FAQ warns that a rejected second appeal could escalate to a copyright strike. |
| Unsplashphotos only | Yes | Not required (suggested: "Photo by [name] on Unsplash") | The broadest free licence here: no Standalone or sensitive-use clause, and it expressly allows commercial use. But trademarks, recognizable people and artworks shown inside a photo are not licensed. Unsplash is photos only, and a slideshow of stills with minimal or no narrative, commentary or educational value falls under YouTube's generic or repetitive content policy (see YouTube's side). |
| Unsplash+paid photos | Conditions | Not required | Sensitive topics are listed as not permitted unless you add a disclaimer such as "posed by model". No use in digital templates or for machine learning or AI. The licence covers images downloaded from your own subscription and comes with a warranty backed by a legal guarantee of up to US $10,000 per photo, but only if you use the images within the licence. |
| Coverrvideo and music | Conditions | Not required | Not every search result is Coverr's: Coverr supplements its catalogue with Shutterstock's collection, and on the search page we read, those clips linked out to shutterstock.com under Shutterstock's licence. Download only from a Coverr clip page. The licence FAQ bars offering clips as part of services that include "video editing services". The library mixes human-shot and labelled AI-generated clips. |
| Mixkitvideo | Free License: yes Restricted: no | Not required | Two video licences on one site. Mixkit's own summaries say Restricted License clips are for personal, non-commercial use and cannot go in monetized content, so check the licence name on each clip page. The licence text itself sits in a pop-up we could not read. Mixkit's terms name Shutterstock, Inc. as the operator. No scripts or bots to mass-download, which matters for automated pipelines. |
| Darefulvideo, CC BY 4.0 | Yes | Required | Credit every video, link the licence and say you edited the clip, for example "Video courtesy of Dareful ([clip page URL]), CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), edited". Under CC BY 4.0 a missing credit ends your licence automatically; it comes back if you fix the credit within 30 days of finding out. Small library: 242 clips, all shot by one person. |
| Vecteezyvideo and images | Conditions | Required on the Free licence | One design project per download, on every plan: reusing a clip in a second video needs a new download. The Free licence allows video and production projects with budgets up to $1,000, and the agreement does not say whether a YouTube video counts as "digital" or "production" use. Paid Pro plans remove the credit and raise the cap. |
| Videezyvideo | Unclear | Required on Standard clips | Each clip carries its own licence (Standard, Pro, Creative Commons or Editorial Use Only), while the site terms, last updated in 2018, describe content as for personal, non-commercial use. Read the clip's own licence and save a screenshot before relying on it. Editorial clips are out for a monetized channel. |
| Videvo and Mazwai | Unclear | Required on free Freepik downloads | Both sites now redirect to Freepik, and Freepik's terms page now redirects to terms published by Magnific AI. Those terms require credit on free downloads, ban client work as a general rule, and make any clip showing logos, recognizable products, public buildings, public events or recognizable bystanders editorial-only. Guides that still list either site as a free source of Creative Commons clips are out of date. |
| Life of Vids | Not verified | Unknown | The site refused connections on October 10, 2026, and third-party summaries of its licence contradict each other. Do not rely on them. |
Paid subscriptions
Paying usually removes the credit line and sometimes adds a warranty. It also adds a trap the free libraries do not have: what happens to your licence when you cancel.
| Source | Monetized use | Credit | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| StoryblocksIndividual licence | Conditions | Not required | After you cancel, only clips in videos completed during a paid term stay licensed. The Individual plan excludes broadcast, TV and OTT, and political use. It covers one person working alone, including client work done through a single-member company, but no other person, entity, company or client may rely on it. If any organization or more than one person needs to use or rely on the files, the Business licence is required, and raw files may not be shared with clients. Some content is tracked in Content ID: Storyblocks' help page says to add your YouTube channel ID to your account and claims should release within 72 hours. Licence last updated September 28, 2026. |
| Envato Elements | Conditions | Not required | Each licence covers one project, so register each video separately (an unchanged intro or outro is the exception). Finished, registered videos stay covered after you cancel; you cannot start new ones, and unfinished projects lose the licence. Envato can end a licence over a rights problem, and you must then remove the item. You may not claim items through Content ID. Envato says it does not place Content ID claims itself. Licence updated October 9, 2026. |
| Artgridby Artlist | Conditions | Not required | The licence names YouTube and allows monetizing. But a Project must be "a human made Project and not an auto-generated Project", new videos may be published only during your paid subscription, and Content ID registration is banned. If the subject of your Project could reasonably be seen as unflattering or controversial, you may not intentionally portray the subject in a negative way and must state that the model has no connection to the Project's content, for example "Stock footage, posed by model". |
| Adobe Stock | Conditions | Expected in video | In audiovisual work you must make commercially reasonable efforts to credit Adobe Stock, and credit it the same way as any other stock provider you credit. The Standard licence names advertising, promotional and decoration uses plus personal, non-commercial uses; a content channel is not named, though Adobe's summary page reads broader, so ask Adobe in writing if that matters to you. Its 500,000-viewer cap does not apply to work shown only on websites, social media or apps. Unmetered-plan assets cannot be used for clients. Terms last updated January 16, 2026. |
| Shutterstock | Not verified | Not verified | The licence page blocked automated reading on October 10, 2026, so we are not summarising it. Search snippets suggest the Standard video licence caps audience size and that Editorial clips exclude commercial use. Read the live licence before buying for a channel. |
| Pond5 | Not verified | Not verified | Same situation: the licence page blocked automated reading. Read it in a browser, especially its online-distribution and music clauses. |
Public domain archives
Public domain settles the copyright question. It does not settle trademarks, the rights of people on screen, or copyrighted music and footage inside an old film. And "it was on an archive website" is not the same as public domain.
| Source | Monetized use | Credit | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| US federal works17 U.S.C. 105 | Conditions | Not required by law; agencies ask for it | Works made by federal employees as part of their official duties have no US copyright. Contractor work, donated material and copyrights transferred to the government can still be protected, and agency seals and logos fall under separate law. |
| NASA | Conditions | Requested (acknowledge NASA as the source) | The NASA insignia, logotype and identifiers are not public domain: keep them out of thumbnails and channel branding. NASA bars the names and likenesses of current astronauts and employees from commercial products, ads and promotional material, and commercial use must not state or imply that NASA endorses a product or service. Images on NASA sites marked as copyright protected with another holder's name, such as ESA or a university, are third-party copyright, and NASA says to contact that holder directly. NASA states public domain status for the United States. |
| NASA JPL | Conditions | "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech" | JPL is run by Caltech, so the permission comes from JPL's image policy, which allows use for any purpose with special cases. Images captioned with another owner carry commercial restrictions, the NASA and JPL logos need prior written approval, and you must not claim or imply that Caltech, JPL or NASA endorses a product or service. |
| National ArchivesNARA | Conditions | Requested | Federal works are free, but NARA also holds privately made film. Its source and permission contact list sends you to outside permission and licensing contacts for newsreels including Paramount, Fox Movietone, March of Time, Hearst and MGM. Check each record's Use Restriction Status: only "Unrestricted" is a clean signal. |
| Library of Congress | Conditions | Requested | "No known restrictions on publication" is a risk statement, not a public domain finding, and the Library says so. It generally does not own the rights to its collections and leaves copyright, privacy, publicity and trademark questions to you. |
| Internet Archivearchive.org | Item by item | Depends on the item | Uploaders set each item's licence and the Archive makes no guarantee; its help page says most works are available only for non-commercial use with attribution. Read the item's licenseurl at archive.org/metadata/IDENTIFIER/metadata. No licence URL means the uploader selected no licence, but the help page says uploaders can also state use rights in the description field, so read that too. Without a clear licence or public domain status, treat the item as all rights reserved; any NC licence rules out a monetized channel. |
| Prelinger Archiveson archive.org | Item by item | Not required on public domain films | On October 10, 2026, only 1,914 of the collection's 10,468 items carried any licence label. Most of those use a public domain dedication or mark, 31 use CC BY or BY-SA (credit needed), and 7 are non-commercial. The other 8,554, including all 40 most recently added, carry none, and for those Prelinger asks you to contact it. A public domain film can still contain copyrighted music or footage, so check the soundtrack as well as the picture. |
| Wikimedia Commons | File by file | Depends on the licence | Commons only accepts licences that allow commercial use, but licence tags are uploader claims and Commons gives no warranty. Public domain, CC0 and CC BY files are the easy choices. Avoid CC BY-SA music: syncing music to video always creates an adaptation, so the whole video would have to be BY-SA or compatible. Personality-rights and trademark tags are warnings, not licences. |
Museum images
Museum open-access programmes are the best source of historical images for a monetized channel, but only for the files a museum marks as open. The same collection site often shows copyrighted works and restricted images next to free ones.
| Source | Monetized use | Credit | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleveland Museum of Art | Yes, CC0 items | Not required (a citation format is suggested) | Only CC0-marked works. Restricted works are limited to non-commercial, educational and personal use, and the site offers image downloads only for CC0 works. Keep the museum's logo out of your video. |
| Rijksmuseum | Object by object | Required for CC BY items | Each object's notice decides: Public Domain Mark or CC0 (credit recommended), CC BY 4.0 (credit required), or restricted because a third party holds copyright. Policy in effect since July 17, 2024. |
| The Met | Yes, Open Access items | Not required | Use only objects flagged public domain or Open Access; the same collection data also covers copyrighted works. The Met's image policy page did not load for us (HTTP 429), so this rests on its API documentation and open-access dataset notes. |
| Art Institute of Chicago | Yes, CC0 items | "Digital image courtesy of the Art Institute of Chicago" is a safe line | Check that each object is marked public domain: the museum's image server also serves copyrighted images. The artwork descriptions are CC BY 4.0, so reading them aloud needs credit. The image licence page blocked our reader; the museum's own search snippets say CC0 images may be used for any purpose, including commercial. |
| Getty Open Content | Yes, Open Content items | Requested, not required | Getty releases the images marked Open Content on each object record under CC0, to the extent it holds the rights, and says they may be used for any purpose; do not imply Getty's endorsement. Getty describes them as images of works in the public domain in the United States and does not guarantee they are free of third-party rights, so check each record and your own country's rules. The Getty museum is unrelated to Getty Images, the commercial stock agency. |
| Smithsonian and National Gallery of Art | Not verified | Not verified | Both blocked our reader. The unconfirmed lead is that only CC0-marked images are free for commercial use. Check each image's own rights line. |
| British Museum | No (free images) | Required by the licence | Secondary sources report the free images carry CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (the museum's own terms page blocked our reader). NonCommercial excludes a monetized video, so commercial use needs a paid licence through British Museum Images. An ancient object does not make the museum's photo of it free. |
Two rules that cross every museum
Paintings versus objects. A faithful photo of a public domain painting or drawing gets no new copyright in the EU (Article 14 of the 2019 copyright directive) and, under a persuasive US district court decision, in the US (Bridgeman v. Corel, 1999). A photo of a 3D object, such as a sculpture, coin or vase, can carry the photographer's own copyright. Use the museum's own CC0 photo of an object, not a stranger's photo of the same statue.
Italy is different. Italy's Cultural Heritage Code requires a concession and a fee for reproducing cultural goods held by public bodies, including municipal museums, when the use is for profit, even if the work itself is public domain. Free use covers only non-profit activity, and a monetized channel is for profit. How far the rule reaches outside Italy is contested in court.
CC0 waives the museum's own rights. It does not clear the rights of people shown in a photograph, trademarks that appear in an object such as a poster, or the museum's own name and logo.
What YouTube checks, separately from the licence
None of the YouTube pages we read uses the words "stock footage". What follows applies YouTube's own definitions to stock-built videos; where that is our reading rather than YouTube's text, we say so.
Reused content
YouTube's monetization policy treats reused content as separate from copyright enforcement, applies it even when you have the owner's permission, and can remove monetization from the whole channel. Its examples of what is not allowed include compilations of clips with little or no narrative, content that only reads material you did not create, and content copied from elsewhere without substantive modifications. Its examples of what is allowed include edited footage where you add a storyline and commentary. Our reading: a paid licence is not a defence here, and your own narration, structure and editing are.
Generic or repetitive content
The policy section now headed "Generic or Repetitive Content" (YouTube's changelog records a July 15, 2025 rename from "repetitious" to "inauthentic" content) lists image slideshows, templated storylines and scrolling text with minimal narrative, commentary or educational value, and similar or repetitive videos with low educational value, commentary or narrative, or minimal variation across videos. A stock montage over scrolling text fits that description, by our reading. Elsewhere on the same page, using AI to edit your scripts is given as an acceptable use.
Content ID
To claim through Content ID, a rights holder needs exclusive rights. YouTube lists public domain footage, Creative Commons content and content licensed non-exclusively from a third party as ineligible references. So do not register a stock-built video in Content ID, and know that a claim on bare public domain footage conflicts with YouTube's own eligibility rules. It does not stop wrongful claims from appearing.
When a claim arrives
- Dispute only when you are confident you hold the rights. Giving credit and not monetizing are not valid reasons.
- Dispute within 5 days of the claim and the revenue is held from the claim date. Dispute later and holding starts from the dispute date.
- The claimant can file a removal request at any point in the process, and a valid one removes the video and gives a copyright strike. Pixabay and Envato both warn that appealing a rejected dispute carries this risk.
AI clips inside stock libraries
Some libraries now include AI-generated clips: Coverr labels them, and Pixabay asks uploaders to tick an AI box. YouTube requires disclosure at upload for realistic synthetic depictions of real people, real places or events, or realistic scenes that never happened, and by our reading that applies whoever generated the clip. Colour grading and upscaling do not need disclosure.
Channel review
Partner Program review covers the channel as a whole. After a rejection you can appeal within 21 days or reapply after 30 days, with a longer wait after repeat rejections. By our reading, a back catalogue of thin stock montages can count against you even if new videos are strong.
Per-clip checklist
- Read the licence on the clip page, not the homepage. Mixkit, Videezy, Coverr and Rijksmuseum all mix licences on one site.
- Save a record of each clip: page URL, download date, licence name, and a dated copy of the licence page. Licences change, and Coverr's says continued use means you accept the changes.
- Cut it into your story. Your narration, structure and editing are what the Standalone rule and YouTube's reused content test look for.
- Look at what is in the frame: identifiable people in a sensitive story, logos, landmarks, artworks. Most licences leave those rights to you.
- Credit where the licence requires it (CC BY and BY-SA, Dareful, Vecteezy Free, Videezy Standard clips, free Freepik downloads, NASA JPL images, and Adobe Stock, which you must make commercially reasonable efforts to credit in video) and where it is requested (NASA, NARA, the Library of Congress, museums). Put it in the description.
- Keep stock and public domain material out of Content ID.
- If a claim arrives, dispute within 5 days with your saved record, and only when you are sure.
If a production service makes your videos
Most of these licences were written for one person making their own video. Several say something specific about making videos for someone else:
- Storyblocks Individual covers a solo editor's client work, but not reliance on the licence by any entity, company or client, and raw files may not go to the client.
- Envato Elements allows client work, but the finished video must be handed over while the subscription is active, and the client may not extract the item.
- Freepik and Magnific ban client work as a general rule. The exception requires, among other things, that the work is not produced by automatic means and that the licensee, not the client, picks the items.
- Adobe Stock needs a separate licence for each client, and Unmetered-plan assets cannot be used for clients at all.
- Coverr's licence FAQ bars offering clips as part of video editing services.
- Pexels and Pixabay do not expressly grant client use. If a claim arises, their terms make the licensee stop using and remove the clip and ensure its clients do the same.
Ask any service you hire for a per-clip list: source page, licence and download date. Without one, you have no record to show that you hold the rights if a claim arrives.
How QuietReel handles it
Our documentary-style videos use Pexels footage and museum and archive images that are public domain or openly licensed. Every clip is cut to the script under original narration, museum images are labelled on screen with what they show, and each video comes with a credits file listing every clip's Pexels page and every image's source and licence.
Questions
Can I use Pexels videos on a monetized YouTube channel?
Yes, if you edit them into a new work. Pexels' terms treat a clip used in its original form, or changed only by a filter, a colour change, resizing or cropping, as Standalone use, which may not be sold or distributed. Combining clips with your own narration, other media and editing into a new creative work is not Standalone use. No Pexels clip may be used in a political context, and people in clips may not be shown as suffering from or medicating for an illness. Credit is not required.
Will stock footage get my channel demonetized?
A stock licence answers the copyright question only. YouTube's reused content policy is separate from copyright, applies even when you have permission, and is judged across the whole channel. Compilations with little or no narrative and videos copied without substantive changes fall under that policy, and image slideshows with minimal narrative fall under a separate generic or repetitive content policy. Any of these can be refused monetization even when every clip is licensed.
Can I register a video made from stock footage in Content ID?
Not the stock material. YouTube requires exclusive rights for a Content ID reference and lists content licensed non-exclusively from a third party, Creative Commons content and public domain footage as ineligible. Envato Elements and Artgrid also ban registering their items in Content ID.
Is footage on archive.org public domain?
Not by default. Each item's licence is set by its uploader, the Internet Archive makes no guarantee, and its help page says most works are available only for non-commercial use with attribution. Check the item's licenseurl field. In the Prelinger collection, 1,914 of 10,468 items carried any licence label on October 10, 2026.
Can I use museum images on a monetized YouTube channel?
Only the images a museum marks as open: CC0 or public domain at the Cleveland Museum of Art, the Met, the Art Institute of Chicago and Getty, and object by object at the Rijksmuseum, where CC BY items need credit. The British Museum's free images are reported to carry a non-commercial licence, so a monetized channel needs a paid licence. A photo of a 3D object can carry the photographer's own copyright, so use the museum's own CC0 photo.
How we checked, and sources
On October 10, 2026 we read each licence and terms page below directly. A second, independent pass then re-read every page and tried to disprove each summary; it corrected 16 of the 54, and those corrections are reflected above. Where a page would not load, the row says so: it is marked "Not verified", or it names what we relied on instead, such as API documentation, the museum's own search snippets or secondary reports.
Free libraries
Paid subscriptions
Archives
Museums and law
This is a reading of public licence and policy text as it stood on October 10, 2026. It is not legal advice. Licences change, so keep a dated copy of the licence shown when you download a file. That copy is not always the last word: Coverr's licence says continued use after a change means you accept it, and Envato can end a licence over a rights problem and require you to remove the item. If you spot something out of date, write to [email protected] and tell us what has changed.