Where to License Stock Photos without AI Mixed In

Short Answer

Five libraries refuse AI submissions and keep generated files out of the collection you search: Getty Images, iStock, Alamy, Stocksy and Picfair. In the guides we publish at Ban the Bots, we start from what a library puts in its own contributor terms. Search for stock photos without AI on any of those five and none of the results came from a generator.

Adobe Stock is the exception among the nine libraries here. It sells AI images beside photographs, and nobody at Adobe verifies which is which before a file goes live.

The free libraries split the same way. Unsplash says every file on its site was made by an artist.

Pexels bans AI uploads in its terms, then declines to guarantee that everything on the site is human-made. Shutterstock bans contributor AI uploads too, then adds images made with its own generator into the collection other customers license.

Stocksy is our pick for a photograph you can put in front of a paying client. It runs no generator, and its member agreement requires you to own the copyright in what you upload. If you need a deeper catalogue and contractual cover, license from Getty Images or iStock instead.

Our AI-free apps hub collects the rest of these guides. If you also need to spot a generated image by eye, the best AI art detectors covers what the detection tools get right and wrong.

What Stock Image Sites Do Not Use AI

Eight of the nine libraries here publish a written refusal of AI-generated submissions: Getty Images, iStock, Shutterstock, Alamy, Stocksy, Picfair, Unsplash and Pexels. Each one states it in its own help centre or terms rather than in a press release. Adobe Stock is the exception, and it accepts AI images on condition that the contributor declares them.

• Getty Images stopped accepting content made with generative AI models. Its contributor retouching and modification requirements also bar AI images used as reference material or as a prop inside a shot. A photograph with a generated poster on the wall behind the subject fails review.
• iStock feeds from the same contributor pipeline as Getty Images, and its AI generator FAQ says visuals made with that generator are not added to the creative library. An iStock search still returns photographers' work.
• Shutterstock says in its content policy update that it "will not allow AI-generated content to be submitted by contributors for licensing on our platform". The reason it gives is that it cannot verify which model produced an image, or pay the artists whose work trained that model.
• Alamy writes on its quality control page that it is "not currently accepting any imagery created by artificial intelligence". It treats such files as unsuitable material, so uploads are rejected and anything found later is removed. Denoise-style AI retouching stays allowed, and Generative Fill does not.
• Stocksy tells contributors in its support centre that uploading AI imagery, illustration or footage breaches the member agreement, which requires the contributor to own the copyright in the file. It also refuses AI images used as props, because nobody can sign a property release for one.
• Picfair says its licence agreements do not cover AI content and that every uploaded image must be an original photograph taken by the copyright holder. A buyer therefore gets a file with one traceable author to point at.
• Unsplash answers the question flatly in its help centre. Asked whether it has AI-generated content, it says "all content available on Unsplash is created by artists", and its content types page rejects work created or edited by generative models.
• Pexels puts the ban in its terms of service, which say "you will not upload Content you have created with generative AI technology". The same document reserves the right to reject anything Pexels believes was made or materially edited with a generative model.

Nine Libraries Compared on Stock Photos without AI

The five paid libraries differ most on two questions: whether generated images can reach the searchable collection, and whether a photographer can keep their work out of model training. Those answers decide whether you need a filter, and whether your money funds the models you are trying to avoid.

Prices move often enough to be worth checking on the day you buy. Compare Getty Images plans and pricing, iStock plans and pricing, Shutterstock pricing, Adobe Stock plans and Alamy licence details before you commit to a subscription.

Unsplash carries one ownership fact worth knowing. Getty Images announced it was acquiring Unsplash on 30 March 2021, so the free site and the most expensive paid one sit under the same owner. That does not put AI files into Unsplash, but it does mean Getty's corporate decisions reach both.

Banning AI Submissions vs Labelling Them

A ban and a label protect you differently, because a label only holds if the person uploading tells the truth. Adobe Stock's generative AI content guidelines ask contributors to tick a "Created using generative AI tools" box in the metadata panel at submission. The same guidelines tell contributors to apply that label when a generative tool "changed, augmented, or added a new primary subject" of the image.

Read that threshold as a working photographer would. A generated sky dropped behind a real portrait might count as a new primary subject, or might not, depending on how the person uploading reads one sentence. Every search that leans on the Adobe Stock AI filter inherits thousands of separate readings of that one sentence.

The libraries that ban AI outright do not have that problem, because there is no threshold to interpret. Alamy's quality control team classes AI files as unsuitable material and removes them. Getty Images goes one step further and bars AI output even as reference material, which closes the gap where a photographer paints from a generated study and submits the painting.

Pexels shows the limit of a ban most clearly, and it does so in its own words. Its terms carry the upload prohibition and then state that "Pexels makes no warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the Content or that all Content is human-produced Content".

That sentence turns the ban into a policy rather than a promise. A client's lawyer will find it.

For a commercial buyer the difference shows up at delivery. A published ban gives you a document to attach to the job. A label gives you a probability, and a probability is not something you can put in a warranty clause.

Getty Images vs Shutterstock on Generative AI

Getty Images went to court over AI training, and Shutterstock sold access to its library for it. On 17 January 2023 Getty Images said it had begun proceedings against Stability AI.

Getty's statement says Stability AI "unlawfully copied and processed millions of images protected by copyright and the associated metadata owned or represented by Getty Images absent a license". Getty later said of the UK ruling that responsibility for infringing trademarks in a model's output sits with the model provider rather than the user.

Shutterstock took the licensing route instead. It announced a six-year agreement with OpenAI to supply training data drawn from its image, video and music libraries.

Shutterstock's data licensing help page says buyers of those datasets "may only use them to train machine learning and computer vision models". Contributors receive a 20% average corporate royalty rate on the revenue Shutterstock collects for those licences.

That page also carries an opt-out, which is the part a photographer should read first. Shutterstock added a setting in January 2023 that lets contributors keep future work out of its datasets, and split it into separate image and video toggles in August 2024. Of the nine libraries here, Shutterstock is the only one that publishes a switch like that.

Getty Images pays contributors rather than asking their permission. Its generator announcement of 25 September 2023 says the model was "trained solely from Getty Images' vast creative library".

The same announcement says contributors "will be compensated for any inclusion of their content in the training set". No opt-out appears in it, or in the contributor pages around it.

The two paths trade one protection for another. Shutterstock treats a photographer better on training consent and worse on catalogue purity.

Getty Images does the reverse, and which one you prefer depends on whether you are buying pictures or selling them. Our guide to AI art theft goes further into the consent side of that trade.

The Libraries That Run Their Own Generators

Four of the nine libraries sell generated images through a generator of their own: Getty Images, iStock, Shutterstock and Adobe Stock. They differ on whether that output ever lands in the catalogue you search. Getty and iStock keep it out, and Shutterstock does not.

Getty's launch announcement says generated images "will not be added into existing Getty Images and iStock content libraries for others to license". The iStock generator FAQ says the same, and adds that the model was "trained exclusively on licensed creative content" rather than editorial content, public domain material or web-scraped visuals. That FAQ also puts standard legal indemnification for generated images at up to $10,000 USD, which is the number a client's procurement team will ask for.

Shutterstock made the opposite choice, and it says so plainly. Its contributor FAQ says a generated image "will be made available for downloading to the customer who generated it and also added to Shutterstock's vast collection of content to be licensed by other users". Contributor uploads of AI are banned, and generated images are in the search results anyway.

That leaves you leaning on filters at two of the four. Shutterstock's help centre describes an AI Generated filter that excludes those files from a search. Adobe published a generative AI filter for Adobe Stock search that either hides AI results or shows only those.

Which Libraries Train Models on Contributor Work

Three of the nine libraries have publicly trained or licensed models on contributor photographs: Getty Images, Shutterstock and Adobe Stock. Alamy, Stocksy, Picfair, Unsplash and Pexels publish no training programme of their own. iStock sits inside the Getty Images training set by virtue of sharing its library.

Adobe describes its position in the Firefly FAQ for Adobe Stock contributors. The first commercially released Firefly model was trained on Adobe Stock images together with openly licensed and public domain content. Adobe answers the consent question with a contributor bonus rather than a switch, so a photographer selling on Adobe Stock is in the training set and gets paid for it.

If you care where your licence fee ends up, Stocksy leads that ranking. It is an artist-owned co-operative with no generator and no dataset business, so licensing a photograph there does not fund a model. Picfair, where the photographer sets the price, sits close behind on the same reasoning.

One caveat belongs on Unsplash and Pexels before you treat them as neutral. Neither publishes a training programme, and Unsplash sits inside Getty Images, which does run one. Read the Unsplash License and the Pexels License for what you are granted today rather than assuming either stays fixed.

What the Free Licences for Stock Photos without AI Allow

The Unsplash License and the Pexels License both allow commercial use with no attribution, and both stop you reselling the file as it stands. Unsplash grants the right to "download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use images from Unsplash for free, including for commercial purposes, without permission from or attributing the photographer or Unsplash". It then blocks reselling an image you have not substantially changed, and blocks compiling Unsplash files into a rival service.

Pexels reads similarly and adds more limits. Its licence permits free commercial use and modification with no credit, and it rules out four things a client tends to ask for late in a project.

• Selling unaltered copies as prints or posters, which blocks the merchandise line.
• Redistributing the files on another stock site, which blocks reselling them as your own library.
• Implying an endorsement by a person or brand shown in the image, which blocks most testimonial layouts.
• Using an image inside a trademark, which blocks logo and packaging work.

Free and paid differ on indemnification rather than on picture quality. Indemnification is the promise to cover you if the licence turns out not to hold, and iStock's published figure of up to $10,000 USD exists because a business buyer asks for one. No free licence carries an equivalent.

Budget for a paid library on any job where a takedown would cost more than the licence fee.

How to Prove an Image Is Human-Made to a Client

Evidence that a photograph is human-made comes in three parts: the licence receipt, the library's published AI policy, and the provenance metadata inside the file. Keep only the receipt and you will have nothing to send when a client's legal team asks. Collect all three at purchase, when it takes a minute.

1. The licence receipt names the library, the file and the date, which ties your delivery to one specific set of terms.
2. The library's AI policy page, saved as a dated PDF. These pages get rewritten without notice. A copy of the rule as it stood on your purchase date answers a question raised two years later.
3. Content Credentials in the file, the provenance standard from the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA), which records who made a file and what was done to it.

Content Credentials need one caution before you rely on them. The standard records generated images as readily as captured ones, so the presence of a credential proves nothing on its own. Ask for a credential that records a camera capture, then the edits made after it.

Other people's rules already require this. World Press Photo prohibits both generative fill and fully generated images across its contest categories.

If a client asks you to warrant that delivered imagery is not AI-generated, attach the library's policy page to the delivery. Without that document the risk sits with you.

If your own editing tools are part of the question, keep them out of the argument entirely. Our guide to photo editors without AI covers the software that does not add generative features to a file you deliver.

Who This Is Not For

Stocksy is the wrong pick if you need thousands of images a month on a flat fee. Its catalogue is curated and small next to Getty Images and Shutterstock. Stocksy also prices per licence rather than per subscription, so a team burning through images pays more and finds less.

Compare the Stocksy pricing page against a Getty Images or iStock subscription before you decide.

Volume buyers who accept a filter should go to Shutterstock or Adobe Stock and set it every time. Both carry far more files, and both give you a switch to hide generated images. You are trading a documented ban for a toggle, and that trade is reasonable when the work is internal decks rather than client deliverables.

Browsing is a different job from licensing. Filtering AI out of DeviantArt, Pinterest, Etsy, ArtStation or Google Images uses different controls on each site, and how to find non-AI art covers them.

Photographers reading this as sellers rather than buyers should invert the table. Upload where a training opt-out exists, and Shutterstock is the only one of the nine that publishes one.

What Would Change Our Answer

Two specific changes would move our pick away from Stocksy and Getty Images. Both would appear first on the same contributor and newsroom pages these policies come from.

The first is Adobe Stock replacing the contributor checkbox with provenance recorded at ingest. A Content Credential written by the software that made each file would turn the AI label into evidence rather than a declaration. At that point the size of the Adobe Stock catalogue would make it the better buy for most commercial work.

The second is Getty Images folding generator output into the creative library. Getty's advantage over Shutterstock today rests on one published sentence saying generated content stays out, and if that sentence changes, the two become the same purchase with different pricing.

Open the AI policy for whichever library you are about to buy from, starting with Getty's contributor requirements or Stocksy's answer on AI content. Save that page with today's date, and file it with the invoice when you deliver stock photos without AI to a client.