Either a mistake or schameless rip off. I hope the Author is with AdRev in this case.
Well, after our feedback they have this video deleted. … and uploaded again with the same soundtrack))). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axH92_sn5_Y
These guys seem to be pretty much shameless.
And another greeting from mother Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUlxtxhckw0
The same story: great video with watermarked soundtrack.
It’s a shame, but maybe they just like it better with the watermark. There are funny people
That watermark should probably sound more obvious. AudioJungle is a brand not many ordinary people are aware of. It can be considered a slightly weird part of the arrangement. “Buy it on AudioJungle.net” or anything like that could make this whole demo thing a bit more clear?
Hey Guys, just because someone accidentally left the watermark track in the video doesn’t mean that it was done deliberately to cheat anyone. The prices are so crazy low here that no major company (or even a small one) would take a risk of using a non-licensed track. I have been guilty myself of posting videos with watermarked audio and photos. Most of the time it is because the editor used comps for client approval, then forgot to remove them or posted the wrong video.
7 million views and watermarked preview. What a shame.
This sounds logical, but unfortunately it is not true. Even if the companies themselves don’t do it, the actual video makers do, and I have seen it happen with my own eyes in the case a multi-billion international retailer. I found it hard to believe that someone would stoop so low to save less than 20 bucks but they did.
It seems like all his videos are filled with Audiojungle preview files…
Maybe, i didn’t check. Not cool anyway.
Not cool at all. If it where just one video it could have been a mistake, but when watermarked files are used in several videos its not an accident.
I’ve reported this exact one and some else to Envato Support more than a year ago but nothing was changed. So I’m not sure that Envato have a possibility (or care) to deal with such cases.
I guess they just can’t do anything, preview file is free after all.
It’s really a shame. At least they should have put a link to the item.
That would have been good for the author with nearly 8 Mio. views…
Looking how freely those guys deal with trademarked brands, persons and quotes at any of their video, I doubt they are familiar with ethic at all, so the shame is not a thing to stop monetizing such kind of products…
They probably use the items deliberately, because they know legal action is almost impossible there. The problem lies where Youtube keeps accepting those videos. Probably because of the many views and advertising. The viewers don’t seem to mind either.
Maybe the audio watermark needs to become a little bigger? Or just at some point in the track a little bit louder.
Its also common in these types of videos to use many different tracks, and just short snippets of each (extremely annoying to watch, but I guess the kidz dig it). Then there is no problem to cut out a piece of the track without the watermark.
Lets hope this music is registered with AdRev so that it generates some money to the composers.
We must use AdRev