How I understand it, Envato is now pretending they never got the money from the purchase, but only the buyer fee. and from us they get only the author fee.
So basically, before they had a turnover of 100% of the sales volumes, but then losses as high as the author’s percentage. so their income is only 30% (with elite authors)
Now, they say all they get is the commission, so in case of an elite author they pretend that their turnover is only 30% paid by buyer and author and not the whole 100%. The income remains the same, of course.
If you scale this up, this can make dramatic differences with tax laws. Instead of 100 million dollars turnover, they now pretend to only have a 30 million dollar turnover. That can give you much more benefits when it comes to paying taxes.
Problem I see is – this is surely a legal grey area. If we are honest, they get the money and pay us, not we get the money and pay them, although they let it look like that. They can earn interest with money in their accounts they pretend to never had, because the buyers are paying us and not envato.
As others already pointed out, to make this seem more legit, we need to have control over OUR money, as you say now. No wait time for withdraws, whenever we want, like it is my own bank account.
But as we are still bound to envato paying us our money, and even have to wait up to 45 days to get that money, you cannot really say that we have the money to begin with.
This is how I understand these changes. Basically, it smells like they try to get a whole lot of money around taxes. Bank account in Switzerland, anyone?
If anyone wants to clarify the need for this change without any incomprehensible corporate talk like “this way we can focus on buyers more, as they are paying a fee now”, that don’t make any sense to me as the money you get is the same (so there is no difference what you can do in your services, unless you pay less taxes and get to keep more of the money).
Maybe I just don’t get it
We already had this debate in the E3D thread.
If you buy a hammer and build a chair with it, you can sell the chair, too. That is the comparison most people have in their minds.
But the problem is, you might buy a hammer, but you do not buy E3D. All you buy is a license to use E3D under certain conditions defined by VideoCopilot.
If they don’t offer you a license to use their software for the kind of use you want to, there is simply nothing you can do (buy). You do not own the software, only the license to use it.
If it makes sense (financially) for VC is another question. I cannot know. Without that restriction, maybe more authors would have bought the software. With that restrictions, maybe more buyers buy the software because of the one cool template that requires E3D.
My guess is, it does make no difference. Main part of E3D customers will be freelancers, studios, agencies and not template authors or buyers. But maybe I underestimate the size of the template market here…
Creattive saidIf they reject my project, they HAVE a reason, otherwise they would approve. Why not give that reason??? Not to start a discussion, but to help the author understand what Envato likes to see in a project.
Reviewers are there to review, and not to educate you how to make better files.
Their job is to judge the quality of submissions and then say yes or no. That’s it. Everytime a reviewer includes more details it is just because he is nice, not because it is his job.
Because they just don’t have time for that. The amount of daily submissions is probably unimaginable for us.
If the reviewer thinks your item is close to be approved, you get a soft rejection with instructions what to change.
will give one week to see if anything changes and if not will create a new thread to clarify if what we are talking about is allowed after all
If you go too much in details that might be locked, too. Sounds unfair and like censorship, but moderators and staff in forums are following rules – even if those kind of contradict with the decisions made by support (no action taken).
The problem is then more the “no action taken” part, than the “is it allowed?” part, because the latter is already answered with “no it is not allowed”.
My getting the wrong end of the stick aside; I still think that this is an interesting debate (as pertains to Red Giant and E3D licensing restrictions) and I’m still not keen on the trend for excessive limitation of tools. Given all the license tweaking and so on that goes on here, it seems pretty undifferentiated that Videocopilot should have the self-same license agreement for a tool like Element 3D as it does for a collection of stock footage like Shockwave.
The problem I see here is that you cannot tell if a 3d scene is rendered with E3D or in a 3D program. Who can prove this to you? In the E3D thread there were many authors who just said “even if I use prerenders I have just to say it is done in another program and I’m good”, and – ethics aside – they are right.
I know it is almost always a thing of ethics when it comes to licensing. Many VH authors (and buyers alike) might not have a license for the software they use (I have no idea here, I do not accuse anyone, it is just possible).
In this case of E3D, it makes it just unnecessary for those who were ethical enough to buy a license but are restricted to use it in all parts of their work.
I’m not asking for anything more than this, because I give the benefit of the doubt. Not everyone knows the rules. I know is author duty to know them but since till now rules were split in many locations and even in thin air (unwritten rules ) it may happen to not know them. It depends of author history of rule infringements off course but a heavy approach is never a good choice.
+1 No need for heavy punishments. Remove the parts of the description that infringe the rules and notify the author that this is not allowed. If that is not possible, soft-disable the item and the author can get it back online after he made the necessary changes to the description.
I think both cases are fair. Even if the soft-disable results in less exposure, it is up to the author how long it takes to get it back online.
Do you realize that we are now hijacking your thread because Doru’s thread about that topic got closed?
Like I say, AK is free to license his products as he sees fit. They’re good ones and they deserve to earn him a good income. But I would question how much a render such as the one that was recently removed… i.e. a Shockwave plug-in layer behind a numerical countdown, could in any way impinge on the sales of a live plug-in. If AK thinks so, that’s his lookout.
Shockwave is not a plugin. It is rendered videos, stock footage, like you find here in motion graphics section.
I haven’t seen the file in question, but even if the single-use license is left out of the equation, you cannot buy a cool looking motion graphic background on videohive, bunch a countdown on top and sell it as new piece.
most probably it is marketing-bla bla. Now they can say “the author fees are only 12,5%, while our competitors take a much larger commission”.