Can similar images have different licence types

[Marmot]

Probably a daft question, but can 2 images created from the same RAW file origin but given different post processing be licenced differently, i.e. one RM and one RF?  I've "redone" some of my images, some which have already been sold, so I don't want to delete the old versions off Alamy, but I may want to post the new versions as a different licence type.  I know it is technically possible to select a different licence, but is it ethical?

[Phil Robinson]

Not sure from a 'legal' point of view, but as the people who license the images might do their own Photoshopping, they could potentially end up with something very like your new version, so I would avoid it. 

[Marmot]

Thanks Phil.  That is a fair point!

[PatrioticAlien]

My understanding is, but maybe im wrong? if one Is RM and then the same one (edited or not) is RF, you could only have one either RF or RM of the same image for sale.

However, if you update them and give them the same license as with the "older version " e.g. Photo x is RM same photo x but updated now also RM. I think it might be fine.

[Marmot]

Thank you PatrioticAlien (cool name!).  I think I'll just leave the licences the same for both.

[PatrioticAlien]

Thank you PatrioticAlien (cool name!). 

Thanks

[Guest]

Probably a daft question, but can 2 images created from the same RAW file origin but given different post processing be licenced differently, i.e. one RM and one RF?  I've "redone" some of my images, some which have already been sold, so I don't want to delete the old versions off Alamy, but I may want to post the new versions as a different licence type.  I know it is technically possible to select a different licence, but is it ethical?

 

In theory yes, you can write an EULA to require anything - RF can be as limited as you want (obvious example are the micro RF licenses which limit useage). RM can be sold as almost RF-like. Alamy sell RM with incredibly broad uses - the only thing making them 'RM' is they tell you they are very broad in useage.

 

There is one significant point when it comes to RM licensing which is exclusive, you would have to disclose the alternative same/similars.

 

However, in the real world....what's the point? if the content remains the same, the processing will make only minor changes unless it's very radical. If it was good enough to be RM to start with, the new ones would merit the same license. If the original was RF, same issue....what's changed so much that merits a change in license. If you made a mistake for the first license....change it!

[Marmot]

I thought once an image has sold under one licence, e.g. RF, then that licence couldn't be changed to RM.

[Guest]

I thought once an image has sold under one licence, e.g. RF, then that licence couldn't be changed to RM.

 

Not the case, I have had Getty change the license type on previously sold images - generally you only go RM > RF. What you can't do is impinge on current licenses by any change. Obviously previously sold RF being offered as RM is slighlty pointless, as the whole notion of RM is having image rights managed and available for a prospective buyer - especially exclusive rights.