Constant Content

I say multiple questions in case it gets long!

I have a series of photographs (okay, I always take many shots of one thing). I posted one of my pictures on a personal blog. There is another similar but different picture (I swear). But it is only SLIGHTLY different. You can tell if you look closely.

My question is can I still sell full rights to the new picture? Or because it is almost the exact same picture as the one on my blog, does it have to be usage? Doesn't really matter either way I suppose. But I like to have options.

Another question is what about a photograph that was taken and then cropped, or played around with (like in photoshop etc- made into a picture that looks like a negative etc). Would that still be considered a photograph? Or would it be more like an illustration? It's still an image I suppose. So I guess I pretty much answered my own question huh?

I am by no means speaking about what is applicable to Constant Content. They have yet to release details about the upcoming media content features. There are several industry rules of thumb regarding series and duplicates that apply to stock photography, they are:

-Edit your series or duplicate photographs down to the best one for submission to stock sites.

- Copyright laws apply to the photograph. Which means that there is a certain percentage amount that a photograph has to be different. If it is too similar it violates copyright. (I couldn't find a specific % amount defined in any law case or law, so I asked a college teacher. They said the rule of thumb is about 70 or more %).

- Industry guidelines are designed in such a way that the photographer needs to find a different perspective for the shot. In other words, don't submit photos from tourist areas that say "take your photo here". These photos will be like every other person's shot and that will violate copyright or at least make it less likely to be protected by the these laws.

A little off topic, but still applicable.....
- Don't re-create famous photographs or scenes from movies. This obviously violates copyright but photographers seem to forget this from time to time. Remember, copyright is for a minimum of 70 years.

It is my understanding (and I may be a bit premature) that the illustration category are for vector files. Photoshop created images are not vector based; therefore, these images and graphics would be under the Photograph category. Again, I may be wrong - perhaps Ed or a CC representative can chime in on this answer.

...That's what I thought (that they would be images still) but for some reason today hasn't been a great day so I wanted to make sure.

Thanks for your reply.

I didn't clarify that BOTH images I was talking about in the first entry ARE my own. The one on my blog is similar to the one that I was thinking of selling here. I was just trying to figure out what rights were best.

I'd need admin for that I suppose.

Thanks for any and all replies.

Reason hit the nail on the head... Everything that was said is correct.