Just a thought: They may well have acquired a enhanced license well ahead of this use!
See here for more information on how to report suspected improper use of your assets: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/content-usage.html
Were an enhanced license a factor the royalty would have reflected it and it would have been labeled "custom" license in the activity report. The asset has sold three times with never an enhanced license.
I'm trying to get Adobe to state whether this company has ever licensed the asset. If not I can at least pursue it through an attorney. If they have then I can stick to protocol and let Adobe handle it. At this point after getting replies from Adobe, I get the impression they don't really care or pursue misuse or unlicensed use of contributor assets. Hope I am wrong.
You're welcome to proceed as you like. Except for the links and pointing out to procedures, you can't get help from the forum in this matter. I'll move this to the stock contributor's forum, however.
I'm not a lawyer, but I was looking at the terms and noticed this for enhanced video licenses: "Include the asset in email marketing, mobile advertising, or a broadcast or digital program if the expected number of viewers is fewer than 500,000"
One interpretation of this is that the limit is 500,000 viewers PER BROADCAST, not a total over time. Obviously you'd need a lawyer to tell you what their interpretation is.
Sorry to correct myself. The text comes from the standard license; it's the enhanced license which says "Reproduce the asset beyond the 500,000 copy/viewer restriction."
Copy link to clipboard
So there is no standard license for video assets? / and a contributor can never make a higher than standard royalty? That's ok with me if that's the terms - just seems like that would not be the case - that a license would contain some limitation of use at a certain number of views.
If it is a video asset, you always make the highest royalty. You can't make a lower than enhanced licence royalty.