Sorry for the confusion on this one. I must admit it does fall into a bit of a grey area. In the past the licensing would have prohibited the act of selling one marketplace item within another (if you’re exclusive) as Cyzer pointed out.
But Creattive is correct. According to the recent policy change, authors can include other marketplace items within their own item, so long as they get permission from the author of the other file. In this case, the author of both files is the same. So he’s essentially granting himself permission.
It is a bit confusing, but I’ve spoken with the team to make sure everyone’s aware of this and if you resubmit the file Tredigit, please clearly state in the notes to reviewer field that you own the license to distribute the included audio file and you won’t run into this problem again.
Yes as Filips just mentioned, you can include AJ files in your projects but you’ll need to purchase the Extended License and then also get a written agreement or permission from the author. You’ll want to keep this agreement/permission letter handy just in case its ever questioned.
Well the graphic that would appear in the rollover is not actually considered the roll over graphic but serves as the preview image on the item page. BUT I agree with you, seems like this may have just gone overlooked, I actually just noticed it myself yesterday. I’ll shoot an email out and see if someone can look into it.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Titles like “10 Awesome [insert category or attribute information here]” make very little sense in any situation and we’re working toward a standard that will correct this issue. We’re actively working on the supporting documentation and will be following up with the review team regularly to ensure these standards are met moving forward.
Sorry for the confusion. As Tyson has mentioned here, attribute-based information really does belong in the attributes. Titles should be a short succinct description of the file and not include extra, redundant information.
We just recently updated the knowledgebase to include this information, but then decided to go in a slightly different direction so the article update was rolled back. We’re still working on it, so it should be back up shortly with this information included. And in the future, we plan to make information like this a little more accessible to both new and existing authors.
Regarding the inconsistent reviews, I’m afraid there’s no other explanation other than a reviewing slip-up. Please understand that these small things can happen. When reviewers are looking at hundreds of submissions, occasionally small things like this tend to go overlooked. When we do notice the mistake we go back and correct it, and it looks like Tyson’s already handled it for the items noted in the start of this thread.
Sorry about the inconsistencies regarding item titles in the past. I’m going to make sure this information is added to the author knowledge-base and get the rest of the team on board with the same standardized naming conventions in the coming days.
The thing is, titles can and should be clear, concise and descriptive. But when creating a title, its important to name the item itself and not worry so much about describing what the item has or does, for Footage and Motion Graphics at least.
The easiest way to tell if you’re using an inappropriate term in your title is to look and see if that information can already be gathered based on the item’s attributes. For example, “looping” is an attribute, so there’s absolutely no reason to include the term “loop” in your title.
We also have categories/attributes for things like Time Lapse, Resolution and Alpha Channel, so again including “Time Lapse”, “Full HD”, or “Alpha Channel” in your item’s title is not only redundant, but it makes the item lists look a bit messy.
One author that really does a great job of item titles is Pressmaster. They don’t even use numbers as each of their items have unique titles, even when they submit many different submissions from the same matching shoot. Doing this not only keeps their titles clean, but it also allows their content to be found through many different search possibilities.
There is no new policy in place that states pans or camera moves are required. We began rejecting with this message recently because we started to see a great deal more clips which focus on very static content (landscapes, or buildings). And more importantly when the subject matter in these clips contain little to no movement, you start to run into the area of “what exactly is the point of this footage”.
Ultimately if the footage looks more like a photograph than a video it’s not going to be accepted based purely on a lack of overall utility. Please realize that we’re not trying to restrict you guys, or make it more difficult for you to sell with us. We need to ensure our library contains useful and valuable clips.
This goes back to a recent post from me where I listed some of the things we look out for. In this case, if your subject matter is static (for the most part), it’s probably best to work a smooth pan into the shot to ensure that there is still something moving.
More importantly, I personally feel like footage is getting a bit odd lately. With project files it always felt like authors actively tried to upload their best work. But with footage it can sometime feel like authors tend to literally cut up an hour shot into 120 30-second blocks and upload anything/everything regardless of what’s in the viewfinder. Basically letting the review team figure out which shots are keepers and which aren’t. This is the wrong approach.