Hello Evertone. I was watching an YouTube video, then I saw this ad. They upload the vídeo with watermark . Shame. https://youtu.be/1MbaGHNatg8
Sorry about my english. I cant find who is the autor, but we can complaint. And dislike this vídeo.
Always best to confirm whether they’ve actually licensed the track or not first, before accusing anyone of theft. It wouldn’t be the first time that somebody has rendered a comp track when they actually have the non-watermarked version.
Its not illegal to use a track with watermark-voiceover.
Obviously they didn’t buy it, that’s why the voiceover of “Audio Jungle” is on the track!
What @SpaceStockFootage is saying is that sometimes the production company or end user will cut the project with a preview track, then legit buy the track, but forget to swap it out. We’ve all forgot to do something before hitting “render” before.
3 Likes
I believe the preview track is not included in the original downloaded file after purchase, but its freely available to be downloaded. At least none of any items I bought had it included.
yeah a lot of times i think people download the preview before buying and cut projects with that (temp track), with the idea that if the client likes the music they will then buy the license
1 Like
I had a buyer (Huawei) bought film & broadcast music license from one of my track. When I search their Youtube account one day, I found the video with my music and they still had the audiojungle preview sounds on it!
1 Like
@FASSounds so weird, maybe a mistake from the guy editing the video… hehehe…
It’s definitely not allowed to publish a video with watermarked music.
Although, as it’s been said on this thread, some buyers forget to swap to the correct version even though they did buy the music.
2 Likes
allowed and illegal are two different definition. I guess that is the case. I couldn’t imagine if someone could make that mistake. Don’t they at least check their work? That’s just careless. Might as well forget about the marketing and spend the money on something that can make a proper image out of their brand.
I still hold the copyright for my watermarked audio, so (assuming a license has not been purchased) someone who uses my watermarked audio is legally violating my copyright and can be subject to civil penalties. So technically illegal.
That being said, it’s not like the FBI is going to raid the users house because they used my watermarked audio. I’d have to submit a DCMA claim, possibly a cease and desist, and then the burden would be on me to prove in a court of law that my copyright was being willfully infringed.
But like others are saying - they might have bought a license. Also, unless the person who may have ‘stolen’ your music is very well established and has a lot of money, it certainly isn’t going to be worth the effort to sue.
1 Like
I just did! I disliked the video! I agree, disrespect! For a business, spending less than $30 is nothing! and they didn’t do even that! very sad!
oh, I did not know it was not legal…
But this might explain why AJ does not want you to include the preview in the zip file!
(I was recently soft rejected because I had included it.)
How do you know they didn’t buy the track? As it’s been said, it’s quite common for editors to forget to swap for the non-watermarked version before rendering. It could be a honest mistake.
Well, using music without properly licensing it is of course illegal. The fact that there is a watermark does not change that.
yes, not licensing properly is illegal, but you wrote:
so I was curious… It happened to me that some rappers bought my beats, but intentionally left the watermark, but this is a bit different, as this was my name, so it was like a “shout out”.
Leaving “audiojungle” watermark does not make any sense 
I was referring to AJ music only, as this is their rule. The watermarked preview is not the item that is sold. It is there for, well, preview purposes as well as for testing. So, as per Envato’s rule, you’re not allowed to use the preview in the end product.
Though not allowed, it’s not illegal if a license was indeed bought.
Thanks for making this clear
1 Like