Logos and music cant be listed & sold separately like music kits?


#1

My track Skynet Particles was rejected cause apparently its forbidden to upload “variations” separately. I was asked by numerous buyers to make my logo/ident version into a loopable track and I tried my best, I uploaded it but Envato rejected it and suggested that I add the over 3 minute track as “free” variation to the existing upload that I sell as Logo, and charge what $8 for the whole lot (not making any sense at all)

This is not a situation where I make a variation of one logo and upload as another similar logo but I change a category and sell one as logo, another one as music and another one as music kit or a pack…

Since the introduction of music kits where we see authors uploading same old tracks but in a form of a music kit, I thought its ok to do similar stuff with other categories. Its nothing crafty its just fair to charge for logo if one wants logo, and charge for music if one wants music and charge for the kit if one wants one. Now after complete rejection they want me to stick this track for free as variation with existing logo. Its laughable and illogical and again it does not make any sense!!


#2

That’s not what would happen, you’re correct that would not make sense.

If you update the ident with a longer track version, the longer version is the one which defines the price. As such, the item would be reclassified as a music item, and priced accordingly, including the Ident version as a variation.

For the record, this is a very longstanding policy that was put in place by management at the time, since 2010, for various legitimate reasons, which we can’t elaborate at this time. Also, kits were exempt from this rule when they launched. That said, we are reevaluating certain library rules in the near term, so this may be a topic for further discussion. No promises though.

In the meantime, you’re free to update the item, if you wish it to be transferred to the music section and priced accordingly.


#3

sorry for going a bit over the top with my slightly emotional response … as always it all makes sense in the end… but what if the logo stops selling cause of the different price, what if the full length track does not tap into buyers taste and drag the sales down…anyway, nevermind…


#4

I agree with this. Having separate versions are a smarter option. Unfortunately we can’t do that here. It would be better to be able to upload versions of tracks and associate them with each other. Then the customer could buy each version separate or all as a bundle.

I miss both this and the option to provide stems.

The music kits makes no sense.


#5

Why not? You can add a lot of variations and loopable segments in a kit.


#6

Easily done with an original song as well. Sure, you can do seemless loops a tad easier with ready made loop parts. But stems bring more options for the editor.

I’d rather see versions and stems than kits.


#7

Stems require a bit more mixing skills though. There are many “stem providers” out there, I think the main idea with kits is to make it easy for AJ buyers to adjust track length. The “source files” category, which offered more flexibility but required buyers to work with a DAW, was dropped because sales were too low.


#8

Don’t really agree on the need for mixing skills to use stems (unless you were talking about the composers, then yes, it requires good mixing and mastering skills to do good stems). Proper stems are just ready made layers that fit together. Most video software handle multiple audio tracks.

Most mid and top tier libs require stems these days as well as versions.

Sure, I get the use of kits. For me it just feels like an odd choice over the other options.

And like the situation above. Not allowing versions is robbing the authors of income.


#9

Fair enough :sunglasses: