Want Free Pics? Here's 21 Sites That You Can Get Them From.

toggle-button

Royalty free image sourceIf you're designing a web site, document, Christmas card or presentation, you'll need photos. And while you can easily just grab some from a Google search, it's not really a good idea to do so. Just because someone's work is findable via a search engine doesn't give you the right to use it for your own purposes.

To use other people's images in your own work, you need to pay. Or you need to find royalty-free images, that are explicitly licensed for you to use as you wish without making any payment. And if you want such images, then https://bootstrapbay.com/blog/free-stock-photos/ has a list of no less than 21 sites offering such images for immediate download.

Whatever you need, you'll be sure to find it on one of the sites. Just locate the picture you want, download it, and it's yours to do with as you wish.

Please rate this article: 

Your rating: None
4.266665
Average: 4.3 (15 votes)

Comments

@KRT - Is it possible for you to share some of your recommended list of free images?
Thanks, Chirpy

@KRT One reason would be "This means you can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission" which applies to the majority of images listed whereas RGB Stock for instance requires registration to download anything and has a ton of small print restrictions for all the images on their site. MC - Site Manager.

Dear @KRT,
Please be so kind as to share your list of almost 200 sites with the rest of us. I know Pixabay and a few others but nowhere near 100 let alone 200.
Thanks, Bob W

Sorry, but I'm not at all impressed by this list. I don't deny that some of the sites are very good. That's not the point. What's astonishing is that the author has completely missed the two biggest and best sites - RGB Stock and Pixabay. Between them, they have well over 800,000 free images, all of excellent quality. In contrast, some of the sites listed by the author are very small or limited in scope. This suggests that either the author hasn't done his homework or has particular reasons for mentioning only the ones that he does. Okay, he does list 21 sites. But I know of nearly 200.