I have tried to register recently for a payoneer card, but your registration form is preventing it. My home country is Ireland and the registration form requires a postal code for all Irish addresses.
The thing is, many addresses in Ireland don’t have a postal code. Most forms know this and the “postal code” filed becomes optional once Ireland is selected, not here.
Additionally “na” & “0” don’t satisify it either, so you should probably get someone to look at that. Very frustrating
campuscodi saidsays who ?
This topic is just wrong. All legal disputes should be handled by lawyers, not Envato.
newly uploadeded times resembling too much existing ones (in design or functions) can be rejected at review time by pressing a button
if accepted (because reviewers can’t memorize 10k items), they should have the same fate once support is notified.
+1 exactly, I dont see how it is any different. At review stage a reviewer (employee of Envato) makes a judgement about whether a file meets the defined t&c’s of publishing on Envato marketplaces. Why then should this be any different to making another judegement, based on new evidence (complaining author’s claims) if the same t&c’s have been abided by or not.
I dont see any difference. The only difference is that Envato would need to invest a few minutes per claim to see if it’s founded or not and then act.
I dont want to hear “it would take too much time” arguments either, because this kind of time investment would eventually become smaller and smaller when people who are tempted to rip off other work see that they will not get away with it. Any anyway, it is a part of running such marketplaces, part of maintenance costs which can’t be avoided.
As I said in my previous post and as Doru mentions above, Envato have a set of fundamental rules for publishing on the marketplace, to which all registering menbers / authors agree to abide by, upon signing up to publish items for sale.
If these rules are broken at any stage, Envato has the right (by your permission) to delete you and your item. So it is not a case of Envato not being able to get involved, it is a case of they not wanting to…..which is the clarification being sought here., WHY ?
The only reason that some users have gamed the system by sending false DCMA notices to delay or disable the competition’s files is because that opportunity is provided to them by this policy of, not investigating, requesting a DCMA and then asking no questions.
The minimum Enavto should do it to hear the complaining author out, judge from the accompanying material (responsibility of complaining author to prove) whether their fundamental rules have been broken and act accordingly. It can be as simple as this, have their t&c’s of publishing content on Envato been broken and if so, then disable the file and warn the author.
This is not about debating in court if copyright laws have been broken, because as we all know people could argue forever about the subtelties of this question.
Agreed, asking for a DCMA when an author provides evidence backing up a claim is a “head-in-sand” response. If an item is uploaded to the marketplace which has been based on an existing item ( clear reuse of code to save time & cut corners) then it breaks the fundamental rules of uploading something for sale on Envato , and as such Envato has the right to remove it.
I don’t see why it has been made so awkward to get Envato to examine a specific item or claim without a DCMA being submitted. In the long term it’s in all of our best interests that such items be removed upon discovery.
Why is this not the case? It’s sending out a very bad message.
I think that before we talk about what price the extended licence should be, we need to talk about what is permitted by the extended licence and what is not.
There are two reasons for this. 1. So that buyers understand exactly when they neeed to buy an extended licence. 2. What they can then do with that licence.
Right now the text of the extended licence is a mess. Its contradictory, unclear and in my opinion unsatisfactory given the implications involved for our hard work. The licence text talks about not permitting resale rights, but then almost every subsequent clause refers to the many forms of resale permitted, which themselves are confusing to the point that anyone can do anything with a file bought on extended licence and say “it was implied in the licence terms to be ok”.
For example until very recently there was a clause (now quietly removed) in the extended licence t&c’s which referred to buying something on GraphicRiver using extended licence and then being permitted to incorporate it into an item on ActiveDen for sale. Because these t&c’s are trying to cover all item types on all marketplace (not wise) , it was then accepted to be ok for Envato Authors to buy sliders and other plugins on CC and incorporate them into their templates on TF for sale. The extended licence on CC for a slider is 5x, which is crazy low, not to mention then having a unique slider to sell as many times as you like on TF where a unique slider can make the difference between average and good sales.
This clause is now gone but I don’t believe that the behavior it generated is gone. For example recently myself and my partner created a slider for CodeCanyon in another account. We opted out of the extended licence for the reasons stated above. Our first page of comments was almost all from Envatos authors looking to purchase an extended licence! People weren’t interested in the general licence of $12 but would prefer to pay $60 and do what they liked with it.
Shortly afterwards, we were contact by a buyer who wanted to buy an extended licence “for his clients”. On further investigation it turned out that this buyer was buying top selling plugins from CC at 5x the price, making some small edits to them to make them compatible with an enterprise CMS and then selling them (complete with full original author’s description & images) on another marketplace. This is ridiculous, but funniest of all this can interpreted from the extended licence terms, to be permitted! To this buyer his small edits equaled incorporating it into this own work! When we pointed it out to him that this practivce was not permitted, his reply was that then he would only sell these items on his own site, because this would mean it was being sold to his clients only, which was permitted by the extended licence! This is only one example, I’m quite sure there are many more.
Bottom line, we don’t trust the extended licence. With this licence Envato is not doing enough to ensure our work is protected. I feel that the conversation about how much an extended licence should cost is premature, and would only make sense to talk about it if the fine lines between what is permitted by the extended licenced and what is not, is clarified beyond doubt.
I would suggest that many more examples are provided and that there are separate provisions for separate item types or marketplaces.