The deal is off for us as this kind of licence does not seem valid. At least it does not seem ethical.
Although the representative from Depositphotos kept insisting this is all legal claiming that "Please be informed that all images that are downloaded with Enterprise or Extended License allows to resale images - modified or in the way they were created by the author. "
For me this is very surprising attitude beacause I read the different licences avaialble on their site myself and I didn't get the impression it was allowed.

Hi,
I have been offered for reselling images of people removed from background (people on transparent background in PSD-format).
The photos are originally purchased from stock site with and extended licence, then edited and now resold.
Can this kind of editing (removing background of people) be considered as derivitavive work that can be resold?
I've had two different answers from two different people representing the stock site in question:
"In changed format without background, images are considered as a derivative work that can be used for other projects of clients who download them. "
And
"With an Extended license you can use an image to create a product such as t-shirts, mugs etc for sale. However you are not allowed to resell an image or part of it. Deleting a background or any part of the image doesn't make it derivative work."

So I'm really confused. Which one is right?