Lets say I edit a file for a client,a logo sting,they can’t use that video on facebook and youtube because the regular licence states it can only be used for one domain?
I have no yet started offering this service but I cannot see clients accepting that.I realise I have to purchase the project on a per client basis but to have to turn around and say you can’t use your logo on facebook or youtube etc is not gonna work for me.
I might have picked it up wrong,thats what it says in the licence.If that’s the case I’m better off getting the author to make a small change so it’s different from the videohive version therefore not tied by the licencing agreement.
Ultimately I am not reponsible with how the client uses the file but if I know the licencing agreement for the file I clearly have to state that to the client.
Hey maybe I got it wrong but I am only going by what I’ve read.
I did notice someone asking about contacting the authors to make a small change so the file is not under videohive’s licencing agreement,if my client cannot use the file on social sites I can see why.
I’d rather buy the files here for each client but if the client can’t use their logo on social sites that’ defeating the purpose. The clients I am targeting are not big it’s simply about giving them a more professional look.They won’t pay $200 + my cost for a 10 second logo.
I did read Mark saying someone can use the video a 1000 times on youtube providing the application is not changed e.g once the client is happy with the final edit they cannot change it in the future as that needs another licence which is fair enough.
As I say I have no issue buying a project per client afterall I just pass that on but I cannot offer a service whereby the client cannot use social media. Youtube is old hat for hosting video with so many sites having the abiliy to self host which is more professional.Youtube however is a good media for marketing that’s 2 sites which would appear to breach the regular licence.
I’d say most buyers are people offering services not end users per se because they haven’t spent £1k to get the software to edit the files.
I’m not really the licence expert, so perhaps Mark or one of the support guys can step in here, but from what you’re saying I’m pretty certain the standard licence is fine.
The extended licence is intended for film and TV distribution / broadcast or for something that’s going to be sold and distributed, like a piece of software or game. That’s how I’ve always understood it anyway. Like I say though, wait for the experts opinion.
Yeah that’s what I thought but here is a quote from the regular licence page “For web content a regular license is suitable for use on a single domain or single subdomain or single directory”.
Now maybe the regular licence is standardised across the Envato Marketplace so this applies to websites from themeforest(it’ getting clearer now lol).It was a late night last night and I think felt_tips is right.
Anyway if it can be clarified that if I buy the file\audio per client and use it once per client per purchase that the logo sting (as an example) is the clients to use providing it is not used for paid products such as a dvd or tv\film broadcasting and is not altered from the original application(they get their logo added once only) new logo new file.
I was thinking a video is content on a website hence my query but I now realise I might have mixed this up slightly.