I would say it’s a slipup in point 2. Even on the items discussion forum you are not allowed to link to your items.
They probably mean linking images of work in progress or rejected items which are hosted on outside servers. Probably just an unfortunate formulation.
That’s my guess
The main thing is the solution or confirmation coming from envato. Arguing will make matters worse.
Sorry Sherman, I wasn’t arguing, just clarifying – no offence
I think if you re-read the thread from the start you will see that the discussion is not whether unlicensed images are allowed in the preview or not. We know that they are not, and Envato state this clearly in their rules. There is no discussion on this.
The discussion is why there are so many items which are clear infringements, how they can slip through, and why nothing is done about it. This is why the thread was started … I guess we got a little sidetracked along the way
As long as it’s used for “preview” purposes only, I think it’s fine. If it were not fine, the flyer section and a few others would need to go on holiday.
I don’t think it matters. You are not allowed to use images you do not have a licence for, not even in the preview. Only that in the preview you do not need an “extended” licence which you would need if you wanted to include the image in the download. That’s the only difference between preview images and included images.
But without the appropriate license you are not allowed to use the images anywhere, preview not.
Where they “soft disabled” or “soft rejected”? I haven’t seen a “disabled” item yet.
There should be a “history” in your hidden items and that should contain any messages from the reviewers.
DMCA compliance is what actually protects Envato I believe. That’s what it’s for. Look at YouTube vs Viacom for a good example.
I just read up on that. That is actually good to hear! I wasn’t aware of this, and it seems that for once a ruling in all these copyright nonsense trials actually makes sense.
That’s probably also where the difference with MegaUpload comes in. It seems that here they actually have definitive proof that the owners/managers of the company were fully aware of pirated files on their servers and actively encouraged uploading and spreading them both undertaking it themselves and paying others to do so. Otherwise they would logically have to be protected under the same DMCA compliance…
At the moment this still looks unfinished. Apart from but the review already said I also think it looks a little flat, a little bland and a little empty. Looks like you stopped halfway through and you should still continue adding elements, refining the once you have and adding detail.
The whole thing simply needs more depth and more detail.
Also the really fat font I don’t find very fitting for this Theme.
Hope this helps
If there were to be any legal action, then of course Envato would also be held responsible, not just the author. It doesn’t mean anything if you have to tick a little box saying that all your files are legal. It’s the same with any other pirate site that got shut down – it was always the users will upload illegal content. The sites themselves only facilitate access to them.
The Pirate Bay never actually had any illegal content, only links to it.
Didn’t you also have to click the little box on MegaUpload to promise that you didn’t upload anything illegal?
Did Napster ever have any illegal content? No, it was only facilitating access to it, the users uploaded (shared) the illegal content.
This really is a bit of a grey area. The above only really had one intention: the distribute illegal content. That’s why they were taken down. Envato clearly does not have this objective. However should it come down to a court battle they will be held liable just as all of the above.
I assume that’s also why we will not get an official reply on the topic. Because that could be interpreted as an official Envato stance and they could be held liable for it. And obviously Envato cannot claim not knowing that there is copyrighted content on the site, even if they do their best to prohibit it, and even if there are objective very clearly is not to provide or allow copyrighted content to be distributed.
Let’s face it, if you put up a website these days where the general public has access and can publish you will always run the risk that they would publish something copyrighted, no matter how stringent you are.
Having said that, there really are some blatant examples of rock and pop stars of the highest category on flyers and brochures which I cannot understand how they ever made it onto previews/downloads. I guess reviewers have bad days, too
I also think this looks nice.
If you need to make changes maybe try working a bit on the top section with the 2 swirls top left and top right. These look a little flat to me.
Also maybe give the heart shape some sort of detail around the top weight just looks like a cutout photo.
I also don’t think that the typography needs any work. But if the reviewer absolutely wants to see it, then maybe try working in a swirly handwritten font which will fit in nicely. For example when you now have the wedding date you could write it in big swirly letters.
I’m not sure if the shape of the buttons lends itself to being very useful, feels like you can’t do much with them.
Also, there is very little choice. The only really have two buttons there. Look at comparable files and how much choice they offer.
The arrows and insets could do with some work, it doesn’t look overly polished.
This looks like an unfinished item.