Suggestion: License to Remix / Expand?

I don’t know how this could be implemented but is it possible to have a license for fellow artists, such that they can then add stuff to the track they’ve purchased?

  • Format? Original DAW file surely? What if it’s a higher version than the buyer’s? What if buyer pretends it’s a higher version and demands refund (= free track)?
  • Need to rule out {buyer adds single cowbell ping = now it’s buyer’s own track}
  • Have buy-back clause for any derivatives uploaded to AudioJungle? i.e. original seller can buy the derivative off their buyer, & further mangle it.
  • Probably many more obstacles to consider with this type of license.

I’d be interested though, because l find it hard to finish a piece of music, but would like to make reactive edits of other people’s work.

Maybe this is already allowed, because people would put voiceovers on tracks they’ve purchased, thus effectively adding to the purchased track?

1 Like

Of course this is not allowed. The end-product must be greater in scope than the bought item.

If you want to make music with other people get a partner or a band. Buying from another author to make the track your own doesn’t make sense to me.

Hi there, l think maybe you misunderstood. Or l misunderstood.

I’m saying:

  • I know this is an orange selling shop. I’m asking maybe also sell lemons kind of thing?

  • So, l’m proposing: License to Remix

  • Many problems: what constitutes a remix? What file format? Surely you won’t lock the originator out from buying back the original audio?

  • Also, observation: When someone buys an AudioJungle track, surely they are allowed to add voiceovers, or are YouTube videos completely silent but for the purchased AJ track? I’m sure people are already allowed to add voiceovers. This surely constitutes a “remix” of sorts. Also, if a business creates a commercial advertisement using an AJ track with their own special edits / voiceovers, surely their advertisements are in themselves copyright? So therefore l’m wondering if remixing - even with the remixes copyright in themselves - is already allowed or at least a grey area?

  • I’m guessing you never use sampled loops from other authors? Re: making music with other people, i.e. collaborating, instead of a Remix License, you know what? That sounds like a Remix License, except that the Remix License actually has a legal framework …

Yes they are, but the voice over and the music are elements of a greater scope (most often a video). Voice-overs are not remix of a track.

And the answer is absolutely not. If you upload a remix of another author’s material, it will be a copyright infringement. Which will lead to legal consequences.

Hi there, l think you are still completely missing the point of my posts, so l shall leave it there :slight_smile:

I think we all and Envato could think about some new licenses for buyers who really want to own a track and do whatever they want. Probably it can be done in kits category.

We could have a license called “Own it completely”. Sounds a bit scary doesn’t it? :blush:
Envato could limit a minimal price for this license. Let’s say, 1000$ or 2000$. You could turn off this type of license for a certain track. Of course, such track shouldn’t be registered in PRO and AdRev.

This could be a great opportunity for tracks “without a future” that totally buried in search or really unique tracks.
If your track is a bestseller, you could set something like 1 000 000$. We could even go insane and make auctions!! Well, just thoughts :blush:

Indeed it does, why would an author agree that someone else become the owner of their work? For a $1000?! Makes no sense.

Well, authors are all different.
Some definitely would not mind.
If you have a track with several sales after months or years being on the site. I would happily say goodbye to this one :blush: Of course, only in case this track is not extremely valuable to me for some reasons.
Why 1k? Could be 2k or 3k.

One problem I see is that a new owner can lawsuit people who previously bought a license. That’s not cool :blush:
But it could be solved with clear and strict license terms probably.

Dude l honesly thought you were joking when you said $1000 hehe, but okay,. $1000.

I was thinking like, same as royalty free licensing, anything bewtween $20 and $300.

The idea being, you would effectively be collaborating via AudioJungle. I’ve heard a few tracks on here l’d love to add stuff to.

I like your idea of giving away complete ownership via the new type of license. That effectively nullifies the question of “What constitutes a Remix”. Still though, l think the original author should have the right to buy-back, maybe at the same price.

To anybdoy thinking “what? noooo” - think of specific genres, e.g. techno, rave. That’s how they started out, ya know :slight_smile: Nothing new there.

OK more thoughts:

  • Each remix would have to be approved by AJ
  • The evolving tree of remixes would be all part of the same sale item, so all remixers involved are in effect shareholders, they each get an equal share of the profits, or maybe: the originator + latest 5 remixes of the tune get an equal share of ongoing profits.
  • Customers either purchase a Remix license (= non-exclusive ownership) or a Royalty Free license (= use it as an end user, for your Vimeo video etc.)
  • In fact, you could just have it so that Royalty Free license = not the cost of the entire family tree of remixes for that tune, but rather, the cost of one single remix from that tree. That way, no need for sophisticated profit-sharing, whoever created that specific remix specifically profits.
  • Original author of the remix tree gets the right to buy back any remix at any time, at the price they sold their tune to the remixer, not the price it’s actually being sold at in its remixed form.
  • AND / OR, any author in the family tree can buy back from ONLY their downstream remixer(s) at the original price they sold it downstream for.