Once again the front page is flooded with Audiojunglers sales and paws threads:
Sure, it would work, that’s what I’ve been doing for a long time until a reviewer said that the watermark sounds weird and asked to replace it. But again, I don’t bother with watermark anymore since it’s really not a problem that we should be worried about. Those who don’t want to pay for our work will find a way other than removing a watermark from preview files.
You will get soft rejection if you add some delay, chorus, distortion, pitchshift, compression or other subtle FX .
Just simply modifying it for their YouTube video.
In this case the buyer doesn’t have to request permission. Editing track and combining it with additional content is a standard part of any RF license.
Clause 6: You can modify or manipulate the Item. You can combine the Item with other works and make a derivative work from it.
It only means that this is a popular search request, doesn’t mean there’s such thing. In any case, you guys overestimate the importance of watermark. Most of my sales come from the sites that use no watermark at all.
Those who say that it’s impossible to remove the watermark obviously have no idea what this means:
Business background music license is something that other stock-audio offer to their customers, as well as music in hold, performing arts and other uses. Perhaps it’s time for Envato to make some reforms in the current licensing model.