Because I buy so much here, the chances I have credits expire are basically zero, however, this is a pretty shady move IMO. I know some other marketplaces expire them out for tax or accounting reasons, but if that’s the case, then let us buy items themselves instead of credits with cold hard cash as pond5 does.
Like I said, really doesn’t effect me, but it will effect others, and from the outside looking in, users see it as a shady move.
The rule say they can remove an item without a reason and without contacting the author.
rules are tricky and I’ve got that wrong
is not “without a reason” but “without telling you the reason”
Because I buy so much here, the chances I have credits expire are basically zero, however, this is a pretty shady move IMO. I know some other marketplaces expire them out for tax or accounting reasons, but if that’s the case, then let us buy items themselves instead of credits with cold hard cash as pond5 does. Like I said, really doesn’t effect me, but it will effect others, and from the outside looking in, users see it as a shady move.
staff explained this in the past, is related with Australian law, they can’t keep money in an account more than an year.
there were a couple of users that had this problem but staff helped them recuperate the credits so no one lost money this way, from what I know (reading on forums)
They said at the time (and don’t think they changed this), if you have this problem just contact support and they will help you
“without notice to you.”
I simply cannot see any reason why you would not send, or at least attempt to send, notice to an author whose item you have decided to remove! removing outdated or inappropriate items from the marketplace is understandable but not telling the author seems very inconsiderate indeed!
a better policy would be to give an author advance notice along with the reasons for removal and give them the opportunity to fix the item and resubmit it. but at a minimum an author should receive an email notice with the reason for removal.
“Without notice to you…” This is unethical business practice 101. Looks like we’re done buying from Envato.
Look at it this way. Lets say you purchased a car and there was a recall on one of the parts but the manufacturer never notified any of the customers who purchased this car. It would cause a lot of safety issues and hurt individuals.
The same principle applies here. Envato removes a file without notifying customer, said customer updates Wordpress and now their site doesn’t work, they unable to download updated theme files, in result it could cost the company hundreds if not thousands of dollars to hire someone to fix the issue with their website, plus if you’re running an ecommerce solution, your site is down for x amount of days… you’re losing money.
These rules are in place to protect Envato, not the consumer. It outta be against the law in my humble opinion. Any company who puts terms in place to protect themselves instead of their customers is no good in my book.
We will not be purchasing here anymore until the terms become more transparent. This is just unethical in my opinion and there are so many variables on how this is bad for the buyers.
I applaud the clarification on the terms – now they’re actually understandable by those of us without law degrees!
Thanks for the post and clarifications.
I am too lazy to read all those stuff – as the announcement says there are no actual changes in terms
I got it, thanks~
I’d be surprised if they didn’t have a clause like that in terms, i can understand the reasons behind it and doesn’t bother me as an author. Ofc we’re talking about worst case scenarios, i wouldn’t expect envato to use that on a daily basis.
Bingo, well said, bitfade!
Typical practice is to contact authors. But yes, our terms state that we reserve the right not to notify for specialized and rare situations. What we MIGHT be getting cross-wires with here are the recent issues some of you kindly brought to our attention where some authors’ items were soft disabled recently but a staff member either failed to contact the author or our automated system failed to alert the author about the soft disablement. It’s something we raised and continue to investigate internally to ensure our process can be improved and these kind of things can be avoided where possible. Ultimately, what’s in the T&Cs and what sadly happened to a few authors is not related in any way.
Either way, Peter (Pistol_Pete_12) and Collis have already responded with official answers to this concern earlier in this thread. Do let us know if there’s anything else anyone would like clarification on however.