I’m not against getting paid every time, obviously , but isn’t this scheme just too flawed for anyone to follow and it does not correspond to the actual needs of clients (especially freelancers/agencies) that are purchasing audio logos.
Thats exactly the kind of topic we are trying to move forward right here
And to answer you question, I guess the audio logo combined with the animation itself is the end product, copied unlimited number of times as an ending to a video or beginning will not require another license.
If that audio logo was to be used with different animation, in effect, making a different logo or different end product, they would have to purchase another license.
I guess they would have to buy the most expensive license to use it unlimited number of times as copy of one end product….but I can only guess here, its not clear enough for me and for most of people….
I did write, “I guess” so Im not sure…perhaps you were…
boomopera saidAnd the standard license is indeed all you need. Standard license coves all web use, including Youtube, monetized or not. The audience is only addressed for broadcasting.
So why we have to figure it out? Why doest it have to be like some sort of puzzle? Do you think that all those standard licenses that people buy here are used in their private non commercial youtube videos? I dont think so. You know why? Cause the FAQ is not exhaustive enough and it tells me that, yes, standard license is all I need..
So I guess you are happy with how thing are at the moment and do not see flaws in what we have in terms of licenses and cant be bothered to put good word in to be one day selling broadcast license as standard…thats you! Im different.
Yes, I stand for changing the license names completely and give a different, simplified approach that we all understand, and I realize that we wont have it, simply cause its not something you change over night. Im just saying that the whole great system, that took 2 years to implement as you say is kind of ripping us off..
If Envato gave a different twist on the licenses we have now, it could work just fine
We should not allow standard license to be used in adds, monetized youtube videos, trailers, youtube channel logos and many more… we should have it clearly saying that it is forbidden and if you want to use it in those areas, you start with the cheapest broadcast license. (since when broadcasting on youtube is not broadcasting?)
And it should apply to 1 episode only!! If you want unlimited episodes you go with the most expensive license there is….There should not be no middle ground here to avoid confusion. And it should say it clearly too.
can you all see the advantages guys??? And how little we earn at the moment cause of all the mist that surrounds it???
So why we have to figure it out? Why doest it have to be like some sort of puzzle?
Do you think that all those standard licenses that people buy here are used in their private non commercial youtube videos? I dont think so. You know why? Cause the FAQ is not exhaustive enough and it tells me that, yes, standard license is all I need..
Just reading through the FAQ:
If I make a clip for YouTube using music from AudioJungle, can I monetize the clip by allowing ads?
Yes. All of our Music Licenses allow use for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.
So all of the licenses can be used in Youtube Video, with or without monetization. The only problem with the standard license though is that it cannot have any audience, so why is it even considered a viable choice for a client in such a scenario?
Im not an expert on this, but, correct me if Im wrong, there is no answer to it, cause Envato has not implemented such possible scenario into the licensing scheme. If its not in the FAQ, the problem simply does not exist.
So the description of the standard license reads this: “Use in one end product, free or commercial. Most web uses. 10,000 copy limit for a downloaded or physical end product. No broadcast use…”
...and for some reason is 75% the same for all the other licenses (wtf)
And looking at the standard license description, do you know what can you actually use it in?
Can you use it in free or monetized youtube video?
Can you use it in commercial?
What kind of web uses are forbidden?
Can I use it in a game or trailer?
What is a physical end product?
I see too many questions and not enough helpful information thanks to that short license description.
Why using this vague language, this space could be utilised way better, just tell us what it is and what it isn’t for!! Precisely!!! We will take it from there…
Or, walk us through different licenses just before we pay you, or ask us questions about project we need music for before we finalise the purchase, so that we wont make mistakes.
I hope they see flaws in this system and how limited and irrelevant those types of licenses are at the moment.