What happens in this hypothetical legal situation?


Say a buyer purchases one of your tracks for the minimum “Music Standard License”.

After purchasing, the buyer then sends the track to their own producer, who adds their own vocals, makes a few changes to the song like arrangement, add a few new FX, whooshes etc.

The song is then later used for Music & Broadcast, and is placed on a Television commercial without having paid the proper full license.

The buyer claims that it is fair use because they “modified” the track to make it 30% different.

You (the author) of the song are upset and demand that the purchaser buys the Music & Broadcast license to make it fair.

Who is in the right?


The end product must be of a greater scope - they can’t simply record vocals over it and add sounds to make another music track. This is not allowed in any of the licenses here, though some other sites offer special licenses for this. So the answer is, they are in breach of the license terms by making the vocal track in the first place, meaning they definitely cannot use the track and license it to another client.


Thanks @AurusAudio. Is there any part in the Audiojungle legal documentation that I can have a read about that? I tried to search, but couldn’t find anything.


I would check out the Licenses FAQ here: http://audiojungle.net/licenses/faq


As far as i remember, modification or such dramatical changes are not allowed.


what a mess, good luck mate!


write to support. buyers are definitely forbidden to modify it in that way. it is explicitly written somewhere (don’t know off hand) that they cannot record parts over the top.

edit: oh wait, this is hypothetical? don’t write to support. it is simply not allowed.


Ahah thanks for your concern, friends, as I said in the title this is just a hypothetical situation that I was wondering about the other day, I must have missed it in the FAQ so please excuse me if this topic has been done to death.

Anyway, I’m glad that we as artists are protected in that way. :smile: