I have to say, this is really confusing as a stance. YouTube is clearly a social platform, with the capability of reaching the same level of audiences as any of the other social platforms, whether it be 5 or 5 million. The idea that this standard license is somehow different for videos on YouTube specifically when you clearly state in your terms that it is restricted by 500,000 views. Why on earth would someone need to purchase an extended license to use in a video for a growing brand for example, that is only getting a few views no different to the audience you would get on Facebook? It would be unfair to say this given the T&C's don't state this clearly anywhere with regard to video platforms. You say above, "Standard licenses allow up to 500,000 copies or views of the asset. So if you want to use the asset on YouTube, you will be requiring an Enhanced license." This really doesn't make any sense...... because its view restricted, somehow that makes YouTube invalid over other social platforms? But doesn't mention it anywhere in the terms or conditions or even explain why in that statement? I don't think any of this could hold up legally unless specifically set in the terms around utilisation on YouTube (As either social or broadcast platform could be used to describe YouTube). Its not only unhelpful, but extremely vague to say that video in one context is ok (Facebook), then in another its not (YouTube). But, it's not set out in the terms and conditions and can only be found on forums in a reply on a thread..... Reading it as is, is quite clearly an ok thing to do as long as its views don't reach over 500,000 according to the full T&C's. Can someone at Adobe either review this or escalate to a team that can clarify more prescriptively in the T&C's. I can't help but feel this is somehow vague purposely for the purpose of entrapment.
... View more
AdChoices