1202 posts 12 notes. Unlimited potential.
  • Became a Top 20 Author of the Month
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Member of the Envato Team
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
+13 more
Envato team

I know that submitting different edits is a default requirement in certain libraries, but not on AJ. I agree that making duration edits and excluding certain stems from the mix is rather a ‘technical’ than ‘creative’ task, BUT… it still is providing more than required for the same price. In other words, it’s supplying additional content with no charge, i.e. giving it away for free. So as Gareth said: “item pages only purpose – to sell stuff” – damn right! It’s for selling, not for giving away. Now, why I think it’s unfair to other authors who don’t practice free giveaways.
The client always can make basic fade in/ fade out edit himself, but sometimes he might need more than that. In that case he should contact the author, who should charge him for custom edit.

I can see your point of view, especially when applied to the stock music marketplace, but honestly, I don’t think it’s that big a deal. Besides, the rules are the same for every author – you are allowed to supply 5 variations of your file.


So honestly, if you have a problem with it, you should contact Envato to explain their policies to you. I can see how they might seem contradictory – but I think a variation on a track is not a creative endeavour, and a very simple technical one – which is why it’s deemed by Envato that it isn’t giving away free files.

For what it’s worth, there are not many composers who would charge for edits even on custom commissioned work. Most composers get a package deal and with that money – be it $50,000 or $500,000 – or for indie films much less, you are expected to provide ‘the final product’ – whether it takes 72 versions, or 1 version. The same applies for commercials/TV, whatever. And sometimes these include back-end royalties – or in the case of video-games, they don’t. Generally if it starts getting into crazy amounts of revisions, then I ask for more – but if that happens, usually a creative breakdown has occurred and the problem is much much bigger than a simple revision!

Anyway, you can argue that this shouldn’t be the policy on Audiojungle, where the prices are so low – and it seems to devalue music. But in that case – don’t put music on here that you value! The price is the price, and the upload rules are the upload rules. When you choose to upload your music here on Audiojungle, you are agreeing to the rules set out by Envato, and those rules state that you can have variations. It’s up to the author whether they want to leverage those rules.

People giving away free files on the forums are giving away free creative content, as opposed to an edit of something that is already pre-existing (on the item page). A subtle difference, but it is a difference.

You are already selling a tremendous amount of stuff Art-Of-Sound. Had you considered that if you supplied edits for your tracks, you would get even more purchases? How often do you get contacted for additional edits anyway? I suspect that the benefit (purely financial) of having edits far outweighs the benefit of not having edits and expecting / waiting for the buyer to contact you. I did not supply edits of my tracks until early 2012 – and in that time I had just two requests for an edit. Maybe you have more, but I’d be surprised.

It’s possible you think that you’d be underselling your music, but on the other hand you could generate more sales AND more $$$’s by providing edits. There are two ways of looking at it. And maybe it doesn’t make any difference at all! It would be hard to generate statistical data on this.

As others have said, you live by the rules and die by the rules!

A tricky situation. I do understand where you are coming from. I think if Audiojungle made the process of ‘buying edits’ easier, as kristopherfisheraudio suggests – that would help a lot, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

1596 posts
  • Made it to the Authors' Hall of Fame
  • Has sold $5,000+ on Envato Market
  • Had an item featured in an Envato Bundle
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 2 years
+4 more

I don’t think it undersells my work at all
That’s right, it only makes my work less appealing comparing to yours, assuming the 2 works are similar in quality, mood, instrumentation, etc.

At the end of the day we’re all competing against each other; just because you can’t be arsed to do stuff like that, don’t moan at other composers for using their initiative within the rules of AJ and bettering their chances of being successful here.

537 posts Think pink.
  • Power Elite Author: Sold more than $1M on Envato Market
  • Became a Top 20 Author of the Month
  • Had an item that was trending
  • Had an item that became a weekly top seller
+10 more

I don’t believe I have ever had a buyer request me to create a shorter version of one of my tracks. Longer, yes. An instrumental, yes. Remove a prominent instrument, yes. Different mix, yes. But never a shorter edit. Have many of you received a 30-second edit request?

1131 posts
  • Achieved the monthly Community Superstar Award
  • Had an item featured on Envato Market
  • Won a Most Wanted contest
  • Has sold $10,000+ on Envato Market
+4 more

I don’t think it undersells my work at all
That’s right, it only makes my work less appealing comparing to yours, assuming the 2 works are similar in quality, mood, instrumentation, etc.
At the end of the day we’re all competing against each other; just because you can’t be arsed to do stuff like that, don’t moan at other composers for using their initiative within the rules of AJ and bettering their chances of being successful here.

Absolutely. +1. I can see where Art of Sound is coming from and understand the value he places on his music and time – but…he’s selling exclusively through AJ and doing pretty well at it. There are clear stipulations about being able to include 5 variations of a file and Kris Fisher and others are not doing anything wrong by giving their buyers options in how to use the track. In fact, they would be crazy not to exploit every opportunity within the rules to make their music more appealing to customers. We’re here to sell music ultimately – right?

I think the time involved in creating the alternate versions is ultimately irrelevant. We all spend as much or as little time as necessary to create the music we post here. What’s important is that this happens under the rules we all abide by. The rules that Art of Sound signed up to when he became an exclusive author and the rules under which he’s selling a LOT of music.

Gareth made some excellent and very clear points regarding this and I can see via the earlier thread that these points have already been hashed out. Sure $14 is an obscenely cheap price for a piece of music, especially if it’s been used in a national commercial or similar. But – isn’t this the reason Art of Sound and many others are doing so well here? The price point is cheap but it’s our competitive advantage over the corporate music libraries. I direct/edit/score commercials, films, video constantly and deal with licensing issues all the time. Many companies have found their budgets have shrunk recently and paying for library music from other sources can be cost prohibitive for many projects.

AudioJungle has found a great niche in the marketplace – and we are the beneficiaries of it, by our own choice – no one is forcing us to accept these terms. It’s the reason I decided after 20 years of composing music to join the jungle – the price is right and we have the option here to sell our tracks thousands of times over. Sure it’s cheap – but that’s why we have so many potential buyers…right?

Art of Sound – I refer you to pinkzebra’s comment above. Creating alternate cuts is rarely called for, if it’s only a matter of timing and it’s within the rules of AJ then it’s ok. It’s up to each composer to decide if he/she is prepared to put in this additional work. Doesn’t matter how much time it takes.

If you’re not interested in doing same then that’s cool – but don’t berate other composers for trying to do better here. It’s hard to break into the production music scene from scratch, as I’m sure you’re well aware – if you don’t like the conditions here then take it up with Envato. I’d like to make more money on each sale too – but this is not Envato’s current plan. Don’t like it?... sell your music elsewhere. We all have that option.

As pinkzebra has pointed out – creating alternate timing cuts of our music is rarely called for – but there are lots of other ways you can charges clients for revisions and make some extra cash. Composers who choose to provide up to 5 variations of a file within the rules are doing nothing wrong. That’s just my opinion. Respectfully JB

836 posts
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 3 years
  • Has referred 100+ members
  • Has sold $40,000+ on Envato Market
  • Sells items exclusively on Envato Market
+4 more
I appreciate all the comprehensive responses here, my point however was not to “moan” or “berate” other authors who work within the framework of allowed activities. As I already pointed out on the first page of this thread:
Marketing is a competitive business and if you can make your product more appealing – you should do it. I’m simply not entirely settled with the fact that giving free files on forums regarded as a dirty promotional trick, which it is, but the same thing via item’s page is legit. I realize the different nature of the forum and item’s page, but still, it’s the same action.

The point was about the contradiction in Envato’s policy. The initial question of the thread was “What’s the difference?”, and I’m glad to see that really great points were made in some replies.