Can I change the license on my photos and other images?

[Hayford Peirce]

Now that we have a firm decision about what the license is, can I change it on all the photos that I personally have taken and put into articles about food and drink? Some of the earlier ones were Attribution and still are. Can I just go to each image and update the license?

Some of the other images I've downloaded have unclear copyright status (such as a painting that my uncle did) but we've put a CC-a-nd 2.0 on them with some explanatory text.  Those, I imagine, should stay as they are, but maybe not....

Thanks!

Hayford

[Joe Quick]

You can release more rights but not claim more rights.  So the photos that you held onto the copyright for and simply gave CZ permission to use may certainly be released under a CC license, but you can't claim full copyright over the ones that have already been released under a CC license.  Similarly, you could clip off a non-commercial or no-derivs restriction but not add one back on. 

This obviously only applies to images for which you are the author.

[Stephen Ewen]

You can actually deduct rights, too.  HOWEVER, a person or entity who obtained the images PRIOR the deduction of rights may still use it under the former terms, AND distribute it under the former terms.  The deduction effects only later distribution.

[a.a.s.]

Surely, when the licensing/copyright status is not clear you may --and probably should-- clarify it to what you like.

I'm not sure about deducting rights. Most licenses  are  constructed as 'irrevocable' -- so that the re-users of e.g. a photo were not surprised by an author who changes his mind. In this sense Joe is right, one can not claim more rights once the work/image was issued under a (more permissive) license. But I'm not a lawyer...
[update: OK, the 'time' plays a role here, as Steve points out. But CZ is not likely to stop using a more permissive license once obtained. At least, not likely to stop without a good reason -- this could be setting a bad precedent. Also, it's often difficult to determine the date/time that another re-user obtained a copy of our content -- he might claim that it was prior to the license change]

My understanding is also that if you --as the (only) author-- publish a new version of your own work(image), you can pick another license you like for that. Own work is own work and is definitely independent of previous releases.
Consider however that the older version will be always available anyway and someone may be able to make a change similar to your "upgrade", and then this will be available under the "old" more permissive license.


PS. Hayford, this is not personal (not that much related to your work and possible/anticipated decisions). This is just a reflection on our take on the general issue.

[Derek Harkness]

Stephen has it exactly right. The license is between the owner and the person who is receiving the work. Each distribution of the work is a separate contract. I could give a picture to Hayford under CC-by-nc, then the next day sell the same photo to Joe for £10 on a closed license then the day after give Stephen the image using CC-by-sa in the morning and then charge A. Stos £150 for the image with resale rights in the afternoon. The license I give to one person does not affect the rights on the license of the other people I distributed to.

Of couse, why would A. Stos pay £150 for an image that he could have obtained form Stephen for free? Well knowledge of the alternative license is one key factor. This is actually done quite often. People frequently release various qualities or resolutions of images under different licenses, usually with different price tags.

There is one problem that arises. Authors license their work to CZ and CZ then re-distributes the work under the same license. So CZ is a single entity, you can give CZ a more liberal license but not a more restrictive one. At least not without permission. If CZ agrees to abandon it's rights to the more free license and accept the more restrictive then you can change the license. If both parties to the license agree then you can change anything. (of course, why would CZ agree to a move to a more restrictive license other than out of good will.)

[Zachary Pruckowski]

There is one problem that arises. Authors license their work to CZ and CZ then re-distributes the work under the same license. So CZ is a single entity, you can give CZ a more liberal license but not a more restrictive one. At least not without permission. If CZ agrees to abandon it's rights to the more free license and accept the more restrictive then you can change the license. If both parties to the license agree then you can change anything. (of course, why would CZ agree to a move to a more restrictive license other than out of good will.)

If it's a question of moving from CC-by to CC-by-SA, it doesn't really affect us.  It would only affect people who want to reuse that image elsewhere, in other works.  Actually, it only affects them if they want to edit it (crop, coloring, touch up, whatever) and use it elsewhere.

Just to make sure everyone's clear, article text licensing and image licensing are completely different.  We can use an image whose license differs from its article's license.

[George Swan]

Greetings!  I thought it made sense to reply in a new thread.

This thread reminded me of a case I read about, back in 2000.  Rather than post this to an old thread I am starting a new thread.  I started an article about the Mattel Cyber Patrol program, too.

Stephen has it exactly right. The license is between the owner and the person who is receiving the work.