This from www.gov.uk is presumably based on EU-wide legislation (emphasis added):
If you supply digital services to consumers through an online portal, gateway or marketplace then it’s important to determine whether you’re making the supply to the customer or to the platform operator. Where the platform operator sets the general terms and conditions, authorises payment or delivery, or doesn’t clearly state the name of the supplier on the receipt or invoice issued to the consumer, then they’ll be seen as making the B2C supply even if they’re contractually only an agent.
This suggests that from Jan 2015 HMRC (and other EU tax authorities) will view platforms like Envato as the B2C supplier in instances where the purchaser is a consumer.Indeed, Envato have already acknowledged this VAT situation:
Although Envato Market operates as a platform, purely for VAT purposes Envato will be the supplier on record …
The situation regarding pre-Jan 2015 transactions is perhaps less clear.
8. One must TYPE the file size in MB, and the length of the video???
Let’s not forget that one must express the file size in mb. Daring to type MB will bring a swift rebuke.
The fact this irksome ‘mb’ is neither megabytes (MB) nor megabits (Mb) seems—somewhat ironically—to have escaped the notice of Envato.
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.
Nine months down the line since this thread opened and it would appear that some reviewers are less diligent than others in enforcing VH guidelines. Here are some ‘shot descriptors’ that have been approved in titles in just the past few days:
02 Oct: Tilt-Shift, Close Up 04 Oct: 4K, Timelapse 09 Oct: Macro (four in total) 03 Oct: Loop 10 Oct: Loop
When will VH guarantee integrity [the condition of being unified or sound in construction] in their reviewing system?
And what of the promised new advice for authors? See if you can spot it:https://help.market.envato.com/hc/en-us/articles/203039204-Tips-for-Excellent-Titles-Descriptions-and-Tags
...promising results using Apple Compressor after playing around with the settings within the H.264 profile and Entropy Mode…
Yes, just to expand on this: my installation of Compressor consistently refused to properly render either the old watermark or this new watermark using the software’s default settings, producing only the faintest shadow of the watermark on the underlying footage. However, tinkering with the ‘H.264 Profile’ and ‘Entropy Mode’ produced some exports which were perfect, then (bizarrely) reverting back to the original defaults started to work fine too!
In short, Compressor should produce consistent watermarking results, with none of the brightness difficulties which FCPX seems to induce.
then let’s make a petition to envato. we all agree that ratings dont help anybody, even worse, they can kill the project. i think my project is very good, but i have only a one star since a happy customer moves on to other things and dont comes back just for a review. and if the project works smoohtly, it wont be any customer that will contact me in search for help, that i could ask nicely for a good review
When I’ve deployed the new watermark in FCPX I’m advised that it is too bright.
Your colleagues at Support seem confident that if there are any difficulties in utilising the new watermark unaltered in FCPX that “VideoHive team is on it”; so they’ve pointed me back to this forum.
Since I’m trying to replicate this example (supplied by you) of the watermark in action, perhaps you would simply indicate the precise settings you used to achieve this in FCPX? A screenshot of your FCPX settings would definitely help eliminate any possible confusion.
Thanks in advance.
felt_tips saidHave to agree with this since envato has really strict quality control.
The solution is to remove the star ratings. They achieve absolutely nothing. They do not represent the quality of the item. T
If this marketplace didn’t have reviewers then the star-rating system would have ment way more.
And since the marketplace does have reviewers, it follows that star-ratings are in fact an appraisal of their efforts too.
…unless what you are viewing is the combined alpha for the watermark and any underlying footage you have, in which case it should be a solid white (i.e. opaque). The alpha should look roughly like the watermark looks overlaid on black.
You’re right, solid white was due to viewing combined alpha for watermark and underlying footage. Alpha for the watermark alone does indeed look like the watermark overlaid on black.
Thanks for the alternative formats – but some quick tests yielded no improvement.
Searching the interwebs for watermark use in Apple Compressor or FCPX yields numerous examples where opacity is set in the software; none involve a watermark with preset opacity like the VH one. I’ll keep searching.
Whichever way, you should report back with your findings to Support / Mark Brodhuber.
Let’s hope Mark is still following this thread, because last time I contacted Support (July) it took them 7 days to respond. But I’ll reiterate – it’s inconceivable that the new watermark wasn’t extensively tested across multiple platforms prior to release. Envato prescribed the watermark – they will have the answer and will be able to advise an interim solution until they roll-out automatic watermarking.