I guess having both a ready-to-use version with adjusted contrast as well as a flat untouched high dynamic range version is preferable.
The flat look might scare off users who are watching the preview and mistakenly think of the lack of contrast as bad quality. Those users would want to have a color-corrected video they just have to throw in their timeline.
More experienced users will be happy to have the untouched version to play with.
If you have to decide for one of those, I’d take the color corrected version.
That’s a pity, still have a New Year / Christmas item in queue for 5 days.
But hey, my fault at all Enjoy your holidays guys.
I will cross my fingers to get approved on monday, though
He only needs form, not C4D, to open obj files in ae with form.
What exactly triggers the trending-status is still a secret but it looks like it is pageviews and/or comments. Also, it seems to be a comparison to earlier days, i.e. a file can be trending when it has made more pageviews than the day/week before.
That it is not about sales is known for a long time. Almost all new uploaded files are “trendy” after 2 days – basically this whole trending feature is useless as whole pages of items become trending…
edit/ ah dammit doru
Thanks, already did.
(Btw they are called @envato_help now)
Hi, don’t want to talk about details here. Please resolve ticket 124628 as soon as possible, as it is a copyright concern. A just approved item on videohive is essentially a copy of one of my files.
hmm this seems to be reasonable. I’ve actually read the German version and didn’t understand it. He actually pointed me to this article from the Austrian Tax Authority (BMF):
Vermutung zum LeistungserbringerBei elektronisch erbrachten sonstigen Leistungen und bei über das Internet erbrachten Telefondiensten wird vermutet, dass ein an der Leistungserbringung beteiligter Unternehmer im eigenen Namen aber für Rechnung eines Anderen („Anbieter“) tätig wird und somit als Leistungserbringer gegenüber dem jeweiligen Kunden anzusehen ist, wenn die Leistung über ein Telekommunikationsnetz, eine Schnittstelle oder ein Portal (zB über einen Appstore) erbracht wird. Diese Vermutung ist unter folgenden kumulativen Voraussetzungen widerlegbar (Art 9a VO (EU) 282/2011 idF (EU) VO 1042/2013):
and I’ve linked to the article 9a.
Now let me “translate” your mentioned article so even I’ll understand:For the purposes of this paragraph, a taxable person [ENVATO] who, with regard to a supply of electronically supplied services [ITEM], authorises the charge to the customer [BUYER] or the delivery of the services, or sets the general terms and conditions of the supply, shall not be permitted to explicitly indicate another person [AUTHOR] as the supplier of those services.Even after reading this paragraph for three times I don’t get it
The english one is pretty clear.You can shorten it down to this:
a taxable person [ENVATO] who authorises the charge to the customer [BUYER] or the delivery of the services, or sets the general terms and conditions of the supply, shall not be permitted to explicitly indicate another person [AUTHOR] as the supplier of those services.
In other words: Someone who is handling all other stuff is noit allowed to say that he is NOT making the supply.
Totally clear to me, After the first read and especially after the third read.
[Es] ...wird vermutet, dass ein an der Leistungserbringung beteiligter Unternehmer im eigenen Namen … tätig wird und somit als Leistungserbringer gegenüber dem jeweiligen Kunden anzusehen ist
Das ist doch eindeutig, was gibts da nicht zu verstehen?
Sorry, I’m no tax specialist and can’t give your the reason. What does your accountant say to this question?
Up until now I did it just like you: I wrote an invoice to envato over the amount I received on my bank account. That is what my accountant adviced me to do before all this seller-mess came up.
Now with the seller question it becomes a huge big mess and with envato putting our names on invoices, nothing turns out to be right or legal anymore. I will have to wait and see what envato is going to do, how they will declare VAT etc as they don’t tell you this what is another problem… Then I will show this to my accountant again.
However, pure Logic is enough to see that this is wrong when you have expenses now of the 10% author fee that you get an invoice from envato for.
Either you just report the income from your bank account and don’t say anything about the author fee, or you have to report the whole list price and deduct the author fee from that. In both cases you end up with the same number, but the first one is basically saying: It is commission system and the second one is saying: I am the seller.
You cannot report a commission on your tax declaration but then say something about being direct seller and that you do not get paid by envato. Your invoice you issue to envato is saying exactly that: YOU are paid BY ENVATO. It is like saying it is black and white at the same time.
Just came back from my accountant and it seems we can be the sellers.
Sorry, have to correct this here once again. In your post, you are refferring to Article 9a on page 88 here. With this article you (or your accountant) want to proof that it is legal for envato to declare us authors as the supplier.
Here is this Article 9a:
Article 9a 1. For the application of Article 28 of Directive 2006/112/EC, where electronically supplied services are supplied through a telecommunications network, an interface or a portal such as a marketplace for applications, a taxable person taking part in that supply shall be presumed to be acting in his own name but on behalf of the provider of those services unless that provider is explicitly indicated as the supplier by that taxable person and that is reflected in the contractual arrangements between the parties. In order to regard the provider of electronically supplied services as being explicitly indicated as the supplier of those services by the taxable person, the following conditions shall be met: (a) the invoice issued or made available by each taxable person taking part in the supply of the electronically supplied services must identify such services and the supplier thereof; (b) the bill or receipt issued or made available to the customer must identify the electronically supplied services and the supplier thereof.
For the purposes of this paragraph, a taxable person who, with regard to a supply of electronically supplied services, authorises the charge to the customer or the delivery of the services, or sets the general terms and conditions of the supply, shall not be permitted to explicitly indicate another person as the supplier of those services.2. Paragraph 1 shall also apply where telephone services provided through the Internet, including voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), are supplied through a telecommunications network, an interface or a portal such as a marketplace for applications and are supplied under the same conditions as set out in that paragraph. 3. This Article shall not apply to a taxable person who only provides for processing of payments in respect of electronically supplied services or of telephone services provided through the Internet, including voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and who does not take part in the supply of those electronically supplied services or telephone services
So I have to clearly say: Authors cannot be the seller as long as envato is “authorizing the charge to the customer or the deliver of the services or sets the general terms and conditions of the supply” At least according to this document you referred to. Maybe you can ask your accountant again if he didn’t make a mistake here…