So, let me get this right, Polusono is arguing that review times should be at a constant rate, so we can anticipate the timings, in order to get maximum exposure on the front page for sales?
Sorry to ruin the illusion, but can I point out that in over 2 years, with 60+ upload occasions, I have only witnessed TWO separate occasions where my track sold during it’s fleeting moment on that front page. And even then, that was a long time ago.
I still fail to understand why people get so transfixed on review times. Absolutely baffles me.
I just used my first initial because I hate typing.
Haha, that made me laugh dude!
Regarding my profile name; Phil asked me about this when I did my interview for Envato Notes a couple of years ago. Here’s my answer:
What is an “Alumo?” It sounds like a rare species of bird? (PhilLarson)
It does now you mention it! Sadly there are no types of creature or hidden meanings involved; the name Alumo (pronounced ah-loo-mow) was originally taken from my freelance graphic design outfit and I decided to recycle it here on AudioJungle, for no better reason than I was just being lazy! It doesn’t actually mean anything to my knowledge, and it was a name that I conjured up when looking for a short, punchy word that didn’t really have much existence on the internet and that began with an ‘A’. The thinking behind it was that my business would appear alphabetically at the top of lists for exposure. At the time, I convinced myself it would be a great idea, but hasn’t quite worked that way just yet!
So there you go.
Good job Luca! I also noticed the reviewer and Envato staff badge on your profile too, so again well done on both achievements matey! You’re looking to have every badge available at this rate!
AlumoAudio saidPlease do carry on! I think you really are into something with this new tool, that just might become our industry standard. You’re paving the way for us all, thanks for that Matt!
No probs Graham!
Geez, just looking back through at my responses on this thread though, I’m really starting to come across as a hardcore AdRev evangelist. Apologies for that, but I don’t actually think anyone else here has used it as much as me, so I guess I’ll just carry on!Envato, if you want/need me to shut up about all of this, please just pm me!
Thanks PurpleFog. I guess I’m a little wary of posting about things like this in public. I’ve recently been hearing talk both on and off the forums that some authors feel they are being ‘financially penalised’ when they discuss matters on the forums regarding our industry that aren’t necessarily in Envato’s immediate business interests; especially those that may potentially be viewed as controversial or inflammatory by fellow authors or more importantly, buyers.
Of course, this is most likely a case of confirmation bias and maybe a bit of paranoia rolled in for good measure!
In the meantime, I’ll continue adding my input on the matter. Hopefully the folks at Envato may also find it useful!
No probs Graham!
Geez, just looking back through at my responses on this thread though, I’m really starting to come across as a hardcore AdRev evangelist. Apologies for that, but I don’t actually think anyone else here has used it as much as me, so I guess I’ll just carry on!
Envato, if you want/need me to shut up about all of this, please just pm me!
I uploaded my watermarked tracks via Soundcloud about 4-5 weeks ago and thus far no results…..maybe no-one has ever used any of my tracks!
Actually, the main source of our lifted music is YouTube itself.
If you have a video on your YouTube channel that features music that’s high in demand (ukuele, epic cinematic, etc) and it’s tagged and titled well, and appears regularly in searches, you’ll be amazed at how many kiddies quite happily stick it through their YouTube to mp3 ripping sites, and chuck it on their vids, no questions asked, no licenses bought. And that’s where AdRev seems to do it’s work best.
Adrev does appear to be working already as my latest (watermarked!) Youtube upload got flagged for third party music. So it does recognize both the watermarked version and original even though I only submitted the original tracks to Adrev. Anyway, just found that funny, I now filled in the details for my youtube channel on the account page and hope adrev will recognize my channel and whitelist it.
LOL, AdRev recognises the music on any video with your music on, including those with watermarks on it. That’s the whole point!
Also, why would you want to whitelist your own channel? Remember, views of your videos are monetized and you could even benefit from higher views, because you are allowing ads to run on it. Just thought I’d point that out.
I must admit that I’m guilty. I produced an AJ-soundalike for a client some months ago. My client used a preview from audiojungle for the first version of a corporate movie and wanted me to compose something similar in the same tempo. But his client wanted the exact piece from audiojungle with more variation. So he bought the AJ-track and charged me to produce variations that blend seamlessly with the original piece. I wasn’t very happy with that solution because my own composition got rejected-but the client of my client insisted on that. Since the corporate movie never got finished my sin never got published.
I would imagine this kind of situation is very rare to be honest. In most cases, the buyer would go straight to the composer who created the original, and ask for variations. The concept of hiring a separate composer to rearrange a completely different composer’s music is highly unlikely.
But what I wanted to say: If you find soundalikes of your music in the web you cannot necessarily assume that they didn’t pay for it. Mabye they bought the original track but had to make changes because of awkward customer wishes.
And as Pinkzebra rightly points out, this is simply against the terms and conditions the buyer has to abide by.
Also, I wasn’t arguing the fact they had paid for the original or not. That isn’t the issue here. I’m suggesting that one major reason agencies would want soundalike tracks is to work around the overly simplistic and unclear licensing options available when purchasing from RF marketplaces. We’ve heard it so many times now that some buyers are perplexed by the incredibly low licensing fees, that they feel that there must be some kind of catch, possibly a legal one. So it’s easier to get someone ‘in-house’ to create a track – similar to one they like off an RF marketplace, such as AJ.
Yep, it’s pretty frustrating. But as Taco says, there’s no real way to prove intent. I noticed they slightly changed the last chord on the bar too, but have foolishly kept the same syncopation on the change, which may suggest they had indeed listened to mine, and attempted to mimic it.
Either way, I’m not going to bother with chasing it up, as this kind of thing is rife in the world of stock music. I was really just pointing out another example of what lengths buyers will take in order to avoid the legalese of music licensing. Kind of ironic really.
Hey Zineb, There is probably way more coin for envato by selling thousands of 17 buck cat video licences than the odd broadcast licence.. Just the same mentaility us authors have selling here
It’s funny you should mention cat videos. It seems that some agencies are actually quite wary of using RF music on their productions, presumably as a result of lack of appropriate licensing options.
As we saw recently with one of Tim’s tracks, looks like their workaround is to get a popular AJ track, and get a composer to replicate it as close as possible. Found one today on a Fresh Step Cat Litter advertisement using this strategy, with my very own top seller.
Original track: http://audiojungle.net/item/that-positive-feeling/1990674
Knock-off track: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJAPskOiohw
This is clearly a byproduct of not having the correct licensing options available in the RF domain.