Posts by chrisatlemon

1052 posts
  • 3 Years of Membership
  • Affiliate Level 1
  • Author Level 5
  • Beta Tester
+5 more
chrisatlemon
says

Honestly, this looks good to me. I would suggest you request feedback from the reviewer to find out exactly what he thinks is missing here. Maybe you could also post a higher res preview, so we can get a better idea of the details.

Cheers

Chris

1052 posts
  • 3 Years of Membership
  • Affiliate Level 1
  • Author Level 5
  • Beta Tester
+5 more
chrisatlemon
says

I definitely think it’s not right that an item which get soft rejected, then has the issues addressed and upon revising a soft rejection it gets hard rejected.

Did you mention in your message to the reviewer that this was a soft rejection and you had addressed all issues as requested?

On the other hand, looking at your file, I do see the reason for the Rejection. I’m surprised that this was accepted the first time round. Much of the text is really hard to read and I think it could you with more refinement in detail all around.

Cheers

Chris

1052 posts
  • 3 Years of Membership
  • Affiliate Level 1
  • Author Level 5
  • Beta Tester
+5 more
chrisatlemon
says

I’ve just posted an important post on Envato Notes on this topic to remind authors of their obligation to ensure that we keep the marketplaces free of copyright infringement.

Many thanks for this post Collis, especially for addressing the main concern here: how can it be that so many obvious infringements slip through. It makes sense that reviewers are not IP detectives and that it is our responsibility to ensure our files match the criteria.

Most importantly you have hinted that there will be a more stringent application of the guidelines in the review process. I think this is really important, because even if reviewers are not IP detectives there is really no excuse for having items featuring Metallica, AC/DC, the Beatles and stars of similar calibre in previews. It’s one argument not to know every single rockstar/popstar/movie star in the industry, it’s another to turn a blind eye… So it’s really good to hear that something is being done about this.

I think it’s not only a question of IP. It’s also a question of fairness between authors. I for example spend many many hours trying to find quality stock photography, either on Photodune and similar sites or in free directories. It would be much easier and much quicker for me to go to my favourite rockstar’s website and simply scrape a few photos, as many others have done. I do think that it should be part of Envato’s responsibility to ensure that fairness in this area is maintained.

In any case, good to hear that this is on Envato’s agenda.

Thanks

Chris

1052 posts
  • 3 Years of Membership
  • Affiliate Level 1
  • Author Level 5
  • Beta Tester
+5 more
chrisatlemon
says

Well, it could be worse! If you’ve been using preview images you do not have a licence for they could also shut down your account. So a quick change to the preview image may not be the worst deal :)

Good luck

Chris

1052 posts
  • 3 Years of Membership
  • Affiliate Level 1
  • Author Level 5
  • Beta Tester
+5 more
chrisatlemon
says

this file is very flat and bland. It seems there is still a lot of detail missing. If you look at the bestselling files in this category you will see that they are stuffed with atmosphere and detail.

Also not particularly fond of the Main title font, it looks a bit scratched and skewed.

I think there’s quite a lot of work in this still.

Cheers

Chris

1052 posts
  • 3 Years of Membership
  • Affiliate Level 1
  • Author Level 5
  • Beta Tester
+5 more
chrisatlemon
says

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 :)

Cheers

Chris

1052 posts
  • 3 Years of Membership
  • Affiliate Level 1
  • Author Level 5
  • Beta Tester
+5 more
chrisatlemon
says

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 :)

Cheers

Chris

1052 posts
  • 3 Years of Membership
  • Affiliate Level 1
  • Author Level 5
  • Beta Tester
+5 more
chrisatlemon
says

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.

Cheers

Chris

1052 posts
  • 3 Years of Membership
  • Affiliate Level 1
  • Author Level 5
  • Beta Tester
+5 more
chrisatlemon
says

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.

Cheers

Chris

1052 posts
  • 3 Years of Membership
  • Affiliate Level 1
  • Author Level 5
  • Beta Tester
+5 more
chrisatlemon
says

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…

Cheers

Chris

by
by
by
by
by
by