Let’s keep sales conversations in the Sales Monitor threadhttp://videohive.net/forums/thread/the-sales-monitor/51465
If you feel there’s an issue, you can always notify support to have the review team look into it.
But how can you be certain what you’re looking at are E3D pre-renders, unless you’ve purchased the file?
Might want to be careful and be sure of your claims before making blind accusations.
This project ( http://videohive.net/item/corporate-profile/5683275 ) I included pre-rendered (tree) version and original version. That means you can pre-rendreed SOME elements in the projects.
Yes, somehow this slipped through. Please update your project by removing the pre-rendered project.
Just to clear up the confusion, this is basically how the E3D licensing works:
Any graphic/element created with E3D must be live and editable within the project. The customer should be required to own the Element3D plugin to use your E3D project.
I’m on day 4 and my progression bar is at like 99.8% complete. Why it takes 4 days to approve a clip, I have no idea.. they must be swamped.
4 days is average. Also, the progress bar is currently not a good gauge of when your file will be reviewed. The devs have been working on a better solution, but for now, don’t count too much on the progress bar.
@Motionrevolver – I agree, but I think it’s unfair for Creattive to have their item removed if there are other items on the marketplace that bear more than a striking resemblance to the items they have been – ahem – ‘inspired by’.
Well, I may have my own personal opinions, but fairness isn’t for me to decide when it comes to these issues. The difference with this specific case is that one author took issue with another author’s work and reported it.
I agree with you mostly, but where do you propose we draw the line? When I created my Elegant Extrusion project, should VH have disallowed any subsequent extruded logo projects, which there were literally dozens of just on VH alone?
The best metaphor I can think of is relating these projects to small business: Let’s say you run an entrepreneuring bakery that comes up with a great recipe for salted caramel brownies. Everybody loves your brownies. You’re making tons of money and selling hundreds of these things when you find out that the bakery down the street is now also selling salted caramel brownies. Both brownies look similar… they’re both brown, made from scratch, and they both have salted caramel in them. However, the ingredients used in the competing brownies are completely different, and they’re baked in different bakeries. Does that give the first bakery the right to claim copyright infringement on the bakery who “copied” the idea?
There’s simply too big of a gray area, and too many facets to this argument to draw such a defined line in the sand.