Audiojungle voice watermark is torture!

The most stressful part of my job, without a doubt, is the time to look for a suitable music. Even worse when I need sound effects. I am forced to listen to AUDIOJUNGLE AUDIOJUNGLE AUDIOJUNGLE at a volume many times louder than the music or sound effect. it’s annoying, it’s horrible, it’s hateful! I pay the annual plan to use the platform and I need to be tortured to work?! How is this acceptable? This is complete nonsense. Audiio, Artlist and even Storyblocks don’t torture their customers with it. I would love for Envato to respect its customers. Just remove the watermark for us who pay, or lower the preview quality. Anything, just stop torturing us with AUDIOJUNGLE AUDIOJUNGLE AUDIOJUNGLE!


The non-watermarked versions are inside the zip file which you gain access after you made the payment. The preview file is watermarked regarding the fact that authors need to ( partially) protect their work . Asking them to remove the watermark is like you are asking shops to remove their safety devices from their products because its esthetically disturbing. When the perfect Content Identification system will be invented and the authors work will be perfectly safe, the watermarks will be totally removed. Have a good day.


That’s a little bit exaggerated and polemic.


I understand your pain, but it is the only way to protect our music from illegal usage, but the problem is - most of music here placed watermark too loud.


Sounds like you have a pretty good job then :+1:


So i believe i should do something to make the watermark more enjoyable. Some pultec eq and bricasti m7 room reverb would be fantastic. Still not decided if i’d use a VCA or an Opto compression.:thinking:

And I already said in another thread that I like the sexy voice of the girl.
Another would be to see the photo … :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:


So the music producers of most stock platforms are being ripped off for not using this overly high watermark? Are only the cute ones that sell to Audiojungle protected?

The solution for these platforms is to upload the file in mp3 64mbps. Who will steal and use poor quality music in their productions? Nobody professionally. Who will steal a song in terrible quality and that has no license to use it? Because they won’t have the license document. Amateur editors only.

So this choice is to protect from amateur editors, but it hurts all professionals for it. Great choice.

I’m very judicious in choosing a song for the advertisements I create. So I get to listen to over 50 songs for each production. Every extremely loud AUDIOJUNGLE I hear I want to throw my headphones at the wall.

If the watermark were lower, that would be a lot more respectful of your customers.
But that’s not the only solution. Just lower the sample resolution to something like mp3 64mbps. Artlist, Audiio and so many other platforms do this. It’s much nicer to look for music without hearing the same loud watermark over and over again.

That’s not up to us; Audiojungle requires a 320k mp3 preview. Feel free to share your thoughts with them.

@sankirtanadharma . The authors are ripped off even using the watermarks. There are customers who are paying standard licenses then using them on broadcast and tv commercials. The fact that you consider yourself judicious , does not exclude the fact that people do not respect and obey the law everytime.
Audiojungle cannot be held accountable for any missuse of the media uploaded on their platform. The only solution is to upload the media along with the watermark. Still, there are milions of customers which are not quite disturbed by the presence of the watermark. If Artlist opted for a low resolution demo, is their policy and we respect that. Obviously, there are other customers which are more disturbed by the unbelievable low quality, making their work completely shameful for the clients.


Partially agree with you, but such quality does not represent quality of final mix. IMO it’s crap.

Agree, must be annoying to listen to all the time.
Most authors put it too loud which is not necessary.
I think replacing it with a lower volume “preview” voice would be better. But that’s up to Envato.
Lower quality…could work but not representative in my opinion.

1 Like

Even if he changes, there will be someone who will also find it bad.
It never rains to everyone’s liking.

Envatos recommendations and instructions a clear:

  • Any submissions that are two seconds or longer must have the AudioJungle watermark added to the preview by the author.
  • Make sure the watermark is loud enough to be audible, but not so loud that it is distracting.
  • It should also be heard every 10 seconds , and it must be heard in its original state, as it sounds when you download it.
  • Do not edit the watermark in any way.

The most important point is “Make sure the watermark is loud enough to be audible, but not so loud that it is distracting.” → loud enough to be audible …this can be misinterpreted by unexperienced authors
Some people read only the bold text " * Do not edit the watermark in any way." and put the watermark as it is on a second track, without any editing in volume.


Hello, I think I agree with you about the pro vs amateur thing.

It is like all these software protections that are annoying as hell for professional musicians… that have to deal with 5 different “authorization” applications that manage all your licenses, while amateur don’t care because they steal the software and can use it without any restrictions anyway…

When I want people to listen to my portfolio, I redirect them to another one usually, because the audiojungle watermark quickly ruins their experience :slight_smile:

I just checked Artlist, and no audible watermark while previewing, but then they say that downloads will be watermarked; this can be the ideal compromise.

if we have to make sure that it is not too loud but enough,
this implies modifying the volume according to the song.
it is therefore nonsense to say not to change the volume.

1 Like

Who did say that?

@Daydreamz-Studios . IMHO
The watermark is there for a reason.
• Yes, it might get disturbing at higher levels, but the customer knows that once he buys the media, he will have access to un-watermarked version.
• There are shady characters across the internet who found ways to remove the watermark, which in my opinion is more than a fraud, is beyond humane. Stealing from people who are selling their talent and hard work for pennies.
• If a customer claimes that he is bothered by the watermark is a red flag for a potential fraud.Please, people, do not enable or tolerate this demands.
• I know ( as probably all authors do) how to remove the watermark. If the policy wasn’t against modifying the watermark , i would personalize it , so it couldn’t be removed. Once one does not have access to my watermark itself, then good luck.

It’s all great.
How do you present your content?
No watermark?
And then, I would like to see your portfolio if you give advice on a global scale.
Companies (and quite famous ones) do not have such requirements - everyone understands that they need to somehow protect their rights, in this case with the help of a preview.
Link to your portfolio - I’m wondering if copyright can be circumvented if it’s not protected by some sign?