How about AudioJungle in Youtube? Problems?


If I have a music to Audiojungle, Youtube send the message: “[Copyright claim] Cannot monetize video”

We can’t use the music of AUdioJungle in our videos on Youtube. Is that correct?


You can use all music on youtube, but some music is registered with AdRev.
Read this


Of course you can :wink:

The message you received is completely normal. It just means the track you purchased has been registered with ContentID which is a digital fingerprinting system used to track identify usage of the author’s tracks on YouTube. It’s also a mechanism by which authors can make revenue from illegitimate usages of their music (didn’t purchase a license).

To get rid of the claim (and the potential ads ContentID has placed on the video), go the the claim and click “Dispute”. Then copy and paste the license details you received when you purchased the track on AudioJungle. For more info go here:



Yes, you can use AudioJungle music on YouTube. That’s where most music ends up.

But, some people have their music registered with ContentID to protect themselves from theft. If you have purchased a license you just give them the license details and the claim will be removed.

You can do nothing and the video still plays, with ads.

Or did you mean as an Envato author using AJ music for promotional purposes?


What about the free audiofiles?

Envato allows free download of several files each month.

Grab this month’s freebies from across Envato Market

How can I put the licence about this files?


Is a nice question, anyway as probably you are looking to get a revenue by using the audio file, and probably spent more time to post in the forum then to gain the money needed to buy the license of the track, purchasing it can probably be the best choice, even thinking that the author can get a couple of dollars out of it :wink:


It really just depends on whether or not the author uses content id, adrev, ect - not all authors do. Personally I don’t content id my stuff, because it seems like a huge pain in the butt for buyers and authors, and we are selling stock music, not pro registered music here. Audio Jungle really doesn’t have much to do with it, but they do put a little “YouTube Content ID Registered? Yes/No” section on the track now, so people can sort of see what tracks have been content identified, but there’s a bit of a “grandfathering” in problem.


Just pointing out that music can be both and that AJ music might be in the future. There is no difference between “stock music” and “PRO music” as you’re implying… And PRO has nothing to do with AdRev so why confuse the matter further?


You may try asking the author to whitelist your video, as an option.
Also, while contacting the AdRev support try mentioning it’s a free file of the month from AudioJungle and attach the link to the page where it says so.


Are you saying there’s no difference between royalty-free and and PRO-registered music? Someone better let Audio Jungle know they’ve built their entire business model on a concept that doesn’t exist. Granted, I don’t think PRO music would make much of a difference when it came to most buyers here (YouTube, podcasts, ect) - and even if it did, the royalties youtube pays out are fractions of cent per stream - but Audio Jungle does offer film and broadcast licenses. You’re right about AdRev being different from PRO’s though, AdRev is much worse…

I’d be interested to hear what top authors have to say about Content Id and AdRev. Do they do it? I’m sure it would be fun for them to be contacted by 50 people for a high-selling track who don’t understand how to (or have trouble) clearing a youtube license claim or dmca notice - so worth everyone’s time and money to protect their track from the 1 or 2 people who might have stolen it and are trying to monetize their video.


Exactly. Feel free to check out any of the many, many big competitors selling Royalty-free music that is registered with PROs.


Yep, non-exclusive author, sell on plenty of other stock sites, most of them allow PRO music, and most of them have the same problems with AdRev. Royalties are typically paid by the broadcaster, station, venue ect, and not the buyer. Still, my point is that I think it’s odd that stock music sites claim that their music is “royalty free,” when technically royatlies are sometimes paid, and you might need to submit a cue sheet. Whether or not someone submits a cue sheet from buying a PRO track on a stock music site, who can say?

I think the entire point of royalty-free stock music sites was to avoid having to hassle with things like this. From a buyer’s perspective, it’s extra work to submit cue sheets, deal with DMCA/YouTube notices, or clear licenses…that works supposed to be done for you, hence the term “royalty free” and the frustration of the topic starter. From an authors perspective, most are probably in favor of such things, but from a buyer’s perspective, the more potential hoops you have to jump through, the less likely you’ll be to use a service in the future. I’ve purchased lots of digital content/software over the years, and the copyright protection some companies use can make their products not worth using. cough Ilok cough. The same applies to music, because these days it’s essentially digital content. Again, the end result is that you stop a handful of people from stealing (who where never going to pay for your music anyway) well inconveniencing everyone who actually does pay. If you want to continue this discussion, how about we stop talking about PRO’s (which I only mentioned in passing) and focus on AdRev.


Well, they claim that because they are. Royalty-free refers to “free from needledrop royalties”. Not free from performance royalties which is what PROs collect. It is not the perfect term but it’s the one that has stuck with us… When people absolutely want to be clear that it is not PRO registered they use the term “Performance royalty-free”, which is really nonsense since any broadcaster is required by law to hand in cue sheets… This just enables them to register the tracks under another name and collect themselves.

For the buyers this is relevant for (broadcast), it’s a legal requirement to submit cue sheets. So it’s not “extra work”. The only thing it is is lost money for the composer. The money will go to someone else.

Sure. AdRev is a choice and it CAN be an inconvenience sometimes. It is usually just a problem if it comes as a surprise. Personally, I’ve had 3 complaints and 3-4 more friendly e-mails just asking for advice (over the course of a year) out of 2,500 videos found. AdRev pays for my rent, food, beer, and some extra spending each month.

Unfortunately, not just “a few” steal… Well, to be fair, many of them are re-uploads of other (properly licensed) videos that the re-uploaders don’t consider to be stealing. But nevertheless, they are still unlicensed videos that deserve our ads on them.


Except for we aren’t talking about any of the buyers on Audio Jungle, because Audio Jungle doesn’t allow pro registered tracks at the moment. PRO tracks have nothing to to do with AudioJungle - that was my original point…that we aren’t selling PRO-registered tracks here - so I’m not sure why you insist we keep talking about them. More to the point, if you sample a large pool of AudioJungle authors, I’d be surprised if a majority of them wouldn’t admit to something a long the lines of, “I don’t put as much effort into my royalty free tracks as I do my other tracks.” At least that’s the general consensus I’ve gleaned from being active on these forums for many years, and having heard many authors say just that. That was more my point, not that stock music is never PRO registered and vice-versa - because who really cares, we can argue endlessly about semantics for as long as you want - but rather, there is a difference between stock music and more “serious” work. I think most Authors themselves tend to make a distinction between royalty-free/stock music and other work - such as contract work - because, stock music tends to be more formulaic, everyone has tracks that don’t sell at all, and that don’t even get approved, ect. Personally, sometimes I just write music for myself, for the joy of writing it, knowing it has not chance of selling as a stock track. What’s the point of it all? If you are a top author with tens of thousands of sales, AdRev might be worth your time, if you’re everyone else, I doubt you’ll generate much money from it and you’ll likely end up annoying people, and of course I fall into the latter camp, like the majority of users here - this is all I was trying to say.

Maybe in the future all this changes, but for now, you can’t sell PRO tracks on AudioJungle. I would have never mentioned them if I’d known it was going to start a whole new discussion, there’s [already a thread for PRO][1] tracks on the forums. This seems to be a highly sensitive issue for authors, even though I’m not sure how many broadcast licenses people generally sell here, but I guess the point is more people uploading their whole PRO-registered portfolio to make extra money…although how much of that would really get approved by AudioJungle reviewers as stock music? Could be the reason AudioJungle doesn’t allow PRO guys, because they anticipate an influx of PRO tracks, many of which would probably get rejected, but they’d still have to review them all…

Really? I’m rather impressed. From what I understand about monetizing videos on YouTube, it’s actually fairly difficult to make money from a video, so you must be a pretty lucky guy to have so many people stealing from you who are also proficient enough YouTube users to generate enough views to earn significant dollars for you from YouTube. If YouTube is someone’s livelihood, 3 copyright strikes can kill your channel, so it seems like a dangerous dance for anyone whose serious about making money through YouTube.

I’m not saying AdRev doesn’t generate money for people, but pay someones rent? That’s a pretty bold claim my friend, I could maybe believe it for a top author. But I’m glad it’s working out for you, we’ll just have to take your word for it, because I don’t actually see that you have anything for sale, at least not on this marketplace under your username. Don’t take that as a challenge, no need to back up your claims, because personally I don’t care. One person’s anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean much to me, but as long as we are talking about personal experience, I get copyright claims on my videos all the time asserting that I’m using a recording (usually public domain music) when in actuality it’s a midi performances by me. To me, this shows an inherent flaw with YouTube’s content id system.
[1]: Where is AJ On PRO ?


Yes, I get it. It just came off as: “Royalty-free music is not the same as PRO registered music”.

Now that is probably true, but not for everyone and not really for any good reason other than that the type of corporate music that sells well here isn’t something everyone is as proud of as their cool glitch tracks.

Again, this is the choices of individuals. Stock music just means that = music that is already in stock and ready to be licensed. It can be bad or extremely good. You can sell the exact same tracks on iTunes for listening and become a pop star. Or you can spend 5 minutes on a piano loop and call it a day.

I get what you’re trying to say, completely, but it’s just throwing these terms around like they ACTUALLY mean different kind of music isn’t entirely correct.

Production Music would be the big term, music that can be stock music, or custom work, and/or royalty-free or not. But its aim is to aid visuals (mostly). Which of course doesn’t really mean too much since a standard club track or a pop track can be as much production music as a music bed of strings… Anyway, yeah, this can go on and on. :smile:

First of all, you don’t get any copyright strikes from using AdRev music, only ads. So there is no danger there.

Second of all, yes, it’s difficult to make money off of YouTube videos. About $1,000 per million views. Sometimes double that, sometimes half. It depends on the country the video’s popular in and what kind of ads are put on it. And more.

I posted AdRev screenshots in some older threads and even links to the big videos but was advised to remove them. This is an affiliate account that I started using on the forum because I think opinions and discussions shouldn’t be judged by what badges you have, how many sales you have or how long you’ve been a member.

I’m not saying you should use AdRev, or that everyone will make $1,000+ a month. But it’s not about how many sales you’ve had here, it’s, as you say, a lot about luck. The very first song I uploaded to AdRev happened to have been used by a very popular Minecraft channel (3D animations), properly licensed. What happened was that kids liked that animation (not necessarily the track) so much that many of them reposted it in compilations. They’ve now had over 10,000,000 views collectively.

That one track meant $193.77 in revenue for me the first month. So I decided to put everything in. Had it only been $0.40 I might not have continued using AdRev. I call that luck, yes.

That track and 3 other tracks make up for about 90% of my AdRev revenue. Out of about 250 registered. The rest are low dollar amounts or even cents. Many videos have still made $0.00. But to be lucky and find those big earners you have to register everything or you will never know. The tracks I make the most from on AdRev are not at all close to being my bestsellers.


You’re right, I should have been more clear with my terms.

That wasn’t exactly what I was implying, I was implying that it doesn’t seem worth it to monetize videos on YouTube and also knowingly steal or re-upload content. Seems like a dangerous path for a person to take, but I’m sure it happens, hence AdRev.

Seems to gel with what I know about AdRev, that being a large percentage of their revenue comes from gaming-related videos.

That’s all well and good, but I think sometimes it’s relative to the discussion. I’d value someone’s second-hand AdRev experience more if they had a lot of tracks licensed out there, because I can pretty much guess the experience of a low-volume author (such as myself). But like you said, much of it comes down to luck - I run ads on YouTube myself, and usually we are talking about tens of thousands of impressions for hundreds of clicks, for which I am paying around $0.03 a click, and the person whose video my ad get’s run on only gets about half of that. Of course there are large businesses with huge advertising budgets that can afford to blow much more money on CPC, but there’s really no way for a YouTube user to control what ads get shown on their videos, other than having associated content, so yeah, quite a bit of luck.


Hi Adam and prestashopthemes! thanks for this discussion. I’ve found this subject VERY confusing, and reading your conversation has been VERY helpful for me to grasp the ‘Adrev’ and ‘PRO’ worlds!
Sorry I can’t really contribute. Thanks!