Forum - Publishing Your Video - Watermark: new terms of use - Messages http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Forum - Publishing Your Video - Watermark: new terms of use - Messages en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Jitbit AspNetForum Wed, 10 Jul 2013 06:32:29 GMT Wed, 10 Jul 2013 06:32:29 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from california765
Why can't you make money the same way that everyone else on the internet does, by charging others for advertising and keeping the product and commercial use free. I would gladly have to look at a fewer banner ads each time I logged in or have a few emails with products that Muvizu is recommending.

I like the product and I think it has value. I just won't pay a per video fee, so I haven't used Muvizu in a long time.]]> Wed, 10 Jul 2013 06:32:29 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from theKodu
The cost is for removal of the watermark only.

You can still make videos with the watermark present and if you contact Muvizu and feel you're going to be making enough money to see payouts to you. You can sign a contract with them for a cut of your revenue rather than having to just pay for each minute of footage.

The difference is you're giving them some free publicity by having the watermark showing and they're taking a set % cut to help improve them.

Then if you do make it bigger, rather than having to negotiate the price down you can simply pay the commercial use on the video. Then you're not paying them 20%.

The problem I see at the moment is people aren't too interested in trying to enter a business agreement as such for the 20% with Muvizu, contract wise. That's seen as something for when people have made it you sign contracts as I'd be more than happy to send 20% of my revenue to Muvizu and back it up but the concern is what the contract will be like, will it be forever or one i have to re-sign each year. what will be the restrictions etc. I know I will probably still look into this aspect more though

Equally the cost for the watermark removal its already aimed at people who have made it.

Really there's no start up as such. the reality is not everyone can make videos just for the joy of it and people would like to maybe make a little off it but contracts are high end really and at present so is the render cost

To be honest at some point I've got to contact Muvizu and get a contract because there are some projects I've like to do, one of which was approved to go on Blip TV and is pretty much delayed because of me being apprehensive about the contract part with Muvizu.

I'd love to see a pro version released, I know there has recently been a competitor to muvizu released at about the £200 mark though I haven't been able to find it for a long time to check it out. I'd happily shell out £80 - £100 for Muvizu pro at present to not have to worry about licence stuff.

While I see the watermark removal as a nice idea I can see peoples issues with it as it's not been explained quite as well as I think it could have been. You're essentially paying for a temporary commercial use license not simply the removal of the watermark. That hasn't really been made quite clear enough I feel.

Really cost wise if Muvizu wants to draw more people in £1 per minute standard definition and £2 per minute HD is probably just about passable. This is considering to make that cost back on blip TV (From people I've talked to already monetising) you need about 1,000 total views per £1 with youtube offering fairly comparable revenue however youtube is more dependent on peopel who viewed the adverts while blip pays a more flat rate per views.
I mean for a 15 minute video £30 is more acceptable to people starting up, heck lower if further to 10-50p a minute and £1 for HD and you'll be using the Valve TF2 hats models as people will happily shell out a little bit if they think its worth it.


As for those on about the source film maker.
the present terms of use state you can monetise videos created using it however only if they are made using entirely original assets. So while you can use their base program to make money you have to make the content models to put in it using another programs most of which are about £70-£80 and normally require more experience to use.]]> Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:54:14 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from MrDrWho13
If they lower the price, more people will pay and more profit will be made.]]> Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:46:19 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from piquet
No one is objecting to them making a profit from their product, but for their sake, and ours, it needs to be a realistic and fair price. This pricing structure is way off being acceptable to many people.]]> Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:23:53 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from MrDrWho13 piquet wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't our computer do the rendering? Soooo in actuality, muvizu want to charge us £5 a minute to use OUR computer, OUR electricity and OUR time!

On a more serious note.....On their 'commercial use' link at the bottom of the page.....

"Muvizu:Play may only be exploited for commercial use once you have paid to remove the watermark. Don’t worry, this is an easy, in-app purchase. We call the activity of paying for watermark-free footage a ‘Content Upgrade.’ Once you’ve got your watermark-free footage then you have our permission to exploit it for commercial use."

This reads, in my opinion, as a one off payment. 'Content upgrade' assumes the same. Nowhere is it stated that the content upgrade will need to be purchased per movie.
edited by piquet on 11/04/2013


Ok, what you need to do is send a message to one of the staff, (maybe Jamie?) And ask them to make it clearer that you pay for each movie.

Please note that at the pre-launch party, they mentioned that they bought the game engine for half a million pounds and they need to find a way to make a bit of money off their free program.
edited by MrDrWho13 on 11/04/2013]]> Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:07:42 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from piquet

On a more serious note.....On their 'commercial use' link at the bottom of the page.....

"Muvizu:Play may only be exploited for commercial use once you have paid to remove the watermark. Don’t worry, this is an easy, in-app purchase. We call the activity of paying for watermark-free footage a ‘Content Upgrade.’ Once you’ve got your watermark-free footage then you have our permission to exploit it for commercial use."

This reads, in my opinion, as a one off payment. 'Content upgrade' assumes the same. Nowhere is it stated that the content upgrade will need to be purchased per movie.
edited by piquet on 11/04/2013]]> Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:52:00 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from WozToons

Muvizu is pay by choice not pay to use. Something to be remembered.
edited by WozToons on 11/04/2013]]> Thu, 11 Apr 2013 01:53:53 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from fazz68 ]]> Thu, 11 Apr 2013 01:06:55 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from mysto
Honestly, having the Muvizu watermark on the clips I've made has never really bothered me. I guess my only "complaint" would be that I think the old Muvizu watermark was cooler looking then the new one. If by some chance somewhere down the road I need to create videos without the watermark I'll just deal with it then. Until that time I plan on "cranking out" animations with Muvizu.

IMHO Muvizu is one damn fine piece of software. The folks at Muvizu do listen to their users and I suspect that all of this will be ironed out in the future.]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:46:07 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from urbanlamb piquet wrote:



By your own comment "At present muvizu has the highest prices in the industry by miles....." Yes, its called greed.
Ripoff, in case you don't know the word, is a company charging highly inflated prices that exceed the actual value.
Nasty because not only is it mean to users it also shows lack of consideration for them or any understanding of the market value of their own product.
Controlling because they don't want to sell the software.

Calling names? I don't think so, it's just stating the obvious....without being subtle.



I actually have to suffer some sort of financial impact before I would start to be so "direct" anyhow basicaly what muvizu has done is maintain their status quo by not releasing a pro version and by placing such a price tag on renders. They have not changed anything (yet). I am still creating the same series I was last week and its still not costing me a dime. The price is up front and its outrageously high but they are not putting me in a position of being unable to continue on my path by withdrawing their free use package *cough* even though the new release is well unusable at present lol. So if you feel that your being fair so be it. Someone has to burn me in some way before I resort to showing my temper I dont even feel slightly toasted. Hence the "name calling" but if it makes you feel better feel free . I only know what I would do (as a person who has had to earn a living and is about to retire) if you rake me over the coals in a situation like this I would dismiss you as being something of a flamer who likely is never satisfied. I could be wrong but I do know that I am producing the same video I was last week and its not costing me a dime. What the issue is though is that for commercial use their prices are unrealistic but since I am not in a position to have to pay them money to continue I dont really have the right to be so "honest" because no money has exchanged hands nor will it be exchanging hands anytime in the near future with said plan. Yet I am still happily sitting here using their software like i was last week
edited by urbanlamb on 10/04/2013]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:19:27 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from piquet urbanlamb wrote:
piquet wrote:
Sometimes the truth hurts!

Actually I'm pretty sure you can now get iclone4 free and still use it for commercial uses. It's the content packs you have to pay for.




It is pricey and I agree they need to change their thinking on it. I dont agree you have to call people names and generally do the bnet flame thing. If you were to do that in real life you likely would have had someone hang up on you if it was a phone conversation or be ignored or asked to leave.

If you came into my office and said these things I would have you escorted away and the door slammed in your face. There is no need to bare your teeth and start brow beating people and calling them names. In this case they strike me as quite the opposite.

Its clear they might not have done a great deal of market research before launching this price plan. They did ask for input and people were honest who were reasonable about trying to put on a price tag they didnt seem to take the input that seriously though or maybe were in a rush to launch the thing. I dont anticipate they will be making a great many sales with this structure and they will notice that and rethink things. For me its business as usual unfortunately the project i had wanted to move into muvizu that was sitting on the sidelines however will be done in iclone because although it is a commercial project there is no way that prices are cost effective and will turn any sort of profit.

At present muvizu has the highest prices in the industry by miles and unfortunately wont be seen as viable for most things. Lets hope that changes

http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2499-to-the-community-at-large.aspx
edited by urbanlamb on 10/04/2013



By your own comment "At present muvizu has the highest prices in the industry by miles....." Yes, its called greed.
Ripoff, in case you don't know the word, is a company charging highly inflated, and unjustified prices that exceed the actual value of the product or service. See item one 'Greed'
Nasty because not only is it mean to users it also shows lack of consideration for them or any understanding of the market value of their own product.
Controlling because they don't want to sell the software.

Calling names? I don't think so, it's just stating the obvious....without being subtle.
edited by piquet on 10/04/2013]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:02:20 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from Dreeko edited by Dreeko on 10/04/2013]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:25:12 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from urbanlamb mos6507 wrote:

What that means, unfortunately, is that businesses need to have thick skins and tolerate being "called names". .



lol glad I live in Canada then.

Anyhow lets hope they fix this quickly. :/
edited by urbanlamb on 10/04/2013]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:11:38 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from mos6507 What that means, unfortunately, is that businesses need to have thick skins and tolerate being "called names". Corporations may be considered persons, but they don't have feelings that need to be protected. Yes, it's a double-standard, but that's how it's supposed to be done. You don't respond to customer complaints (which can get very nasty and personal) by doing the equivalent of the proverbial "hanging up the phone". That is really terrible PR. Negative feedback is a symptom. You have to disregard the ad-hominem and look for the substance of the complaint.
I know this full well from my experiences with Xtranormal, who, six months ago or so, when the going got rough, saw fit to completely shut down its forums and start aggressively censoring Facebook of anything too overtly critical. If you behave that way, it paints a portrait of a company that is more interested in sanitizing its public image than actually improving user-satisfaction. Since then, they've lost just about all their techies and are really nothing more than a zombie-company. That's what happens when companies have a top-down "my way or the highway" attitude. I'm NOT saying Muvizu is like this, but you never ever want to even come close to operating that way. You have to be willing to pay attention to criticism and not circle the wagons.
The fact of the matter is that Muvizu IS a business, and they've been developing the software for over 3 years now, which is a long time for a startup like this. There comes a time where the vested interests expect to see a return, otherwise they will fold. You have to begin to assess whether the expectations that existed at the project's inception have been met, and if not, why? Technology marches on. For instance, lots of attention has shifted towards the (free) Source Filmmaker recently. That didn't exist (at least not officially) when Muvizu started. You have to keep reassessing the landscape and make adjustments.
However, you wind up confusing users if your business model and TOS keeps changing too much. That's again, what happened with XN. It was too much of a moving target. Ultimately XN committed the final insult, which was to completely prohibit anyone from making money with XN videos, which is far more grievous than charging per-minute as Muvizu is now doing. For creative people to invest their mind-share over a long period of time in a technology, changes like this can feel like they are having the rug pulled out from under them. So the better a company is able to anticipate where things are headed and isn't constantly zigging and zagging, the happier customers are likely to be.
I don't know how many of you are aware of this, but crowdsourcing is peaking right now. If you have an ambitious project you want to do with machinima, there's no better time to try to get it funded than now. What's the worst that could happen? People turn their nose up at the minimalism of the graphics. But it's worth a shot. So how these companies deal with people trying to make the leap to getting their projects funded is extremely topical.]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:50:37 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from urbanlamb piquet wrote:
Sometimes the truth hurts!

Actually I'm pretty sure you can now get iclone4 free and still use it for commercial uses. It's the content packs you have to pay for.




It is pricey and I agree they need to change their thinking on it. I dont agree you have to call people names and generally do the bnet flame thing. If you were to do that in real life you likely would have had someone hang up on you if it was a phone conversation or be ignored or asked to leave.

If you came into my office and said these things I would have you escorted away and the door slammed in your face. There is no need to bare your teeth and start brow beating people and calling them names. In this case they strike me as quite the opposite.

Its clear they might not have done a great deal of market research before launching this price plan. They did ask for input and people were honest who were reasonable about trying to put on a price tag they didnt seem to take the input that seriously though or maybe were in a rush to launch the thing. I dont anticipate they will be making a great many sales with this structure and they will notice that and rethink things. For me its business as usual unfortunately the project i had wanted to move into muvizu that was sitting on the sidelines however will be done in iclone because although it is a commercial project there is no way that prices are cost effective and will turn any sort of profit.

At present muvizu has the highest prices in the industry by miles and unfortunately wont be seen as viable for most things. Lets hope that changes

http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2499-to-the-community-at-large.aspx
edited by urbanlamb on 10/04/2013]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:20:52 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from mos6507 Valve also just opened up a workshop for Source Filmmaker, but there are currently no monetization options. With a small team like Muvizu, they have to leverage 3rd parties. Being able to port over static props isn't enough.]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:07:24 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from gimmick 1/ I render multiples cameras
2/ Some final renderings are made many times because of bugs in codecs.

So for me, the price of a minute HD would be around 15 x 5 = £75 or 30x15 = £150]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:07:23 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from Dreeko toonarama wrote:
Dreeko it's just that your post mentioned "mucizu"


Oh right! Never noticed. I'm making all my posts today from my phone and the old eyes ain't what they were!
You may have hit upon an idea for a Muvizu expansion( phnar phnar!) pack though with your adult version. Moderating the movies created with it may prove a headache for the devs mind you lol!]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:01:35 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from toonarama ]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:52:54 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from Dreeko Piquet! You put forward some interesting pricing alternatives. Hopefully as I said previously there will be a variety of purchasing options available to us over time.

In the meantime I'm going to concentrate on making movies as I did before and will worry about logos and payments etc when Disney or Dreamworks ( im not fussy!)come knocking on my door.

Cheers
D]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:50:42 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from toonarama When I made my Toy Dolls video i got nothing for it and Vince was kind enough to allow me to produce a video with no watermark free of charge as the band wanted to use it for promotional purposes (it even made Spanish TV!).
So the band got a very good deal - paying nowt.
If i had said that it would cost them £100 then they might still have gone ahead with it as it would still be a very very cheap video for them but with the new pricing structure and the way it works on the raw output rather than the finished product it would have cost thousands and there was no way they could afford that.

I am sure there are large businesses out there which could afford those prices (and maybe those are the ones that Digimania want to attract) so I guess it really depends on whether Digimania wanted a share of the "small time" commercial market or not]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:25:09 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from toonarama Dreeko wrote:
This is only the first method of recouping some cash that Mucizu has introduced.


Dreeko - do you have an alternative "adult" version of the software?]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:16:47 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from piquet
Give the software for free but without all the packs, just a starter pack to allow a movie to be made and to whet the appetite.]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:04:04 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from Dreeko

Because If the price point is right, people will pay and Muvizu will thrive

If it isn't, they won't and that will be a sad day for both users and developers alike.

D]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:50:32 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from ukBerty piquet wrote:
Removal of the watermark should be a one off payment, as is the case with the majority, (If not all) of the other software that output a watermark on the finished work.


Personally I would have preferred this approach as well, depending on the price of course. It would'nt cause the production issues that the "pay per minute" system introduces.]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:26:15 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from tonyf69
I have bought several lesser programs over the years and would certainly be first in line to pay for a pro version of Muvizu.]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:20:38 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from piquet
Removal of the watermark should be a one off payment, as is the case with the majority, (If not all) of the other software that output a watermark on the finished work.]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:16:49 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from MrDrWho13 ukBerty wrote:

Like Toonarama I could immediately see that I would be overpaying due to the way I work and raised this during the launch presentation. The idea is that you prepare everything with the logo and once you have assembled it you go back and re-render just the segments you are using without the logo. Yes, I can see this as a massive production overhead as well but there we have it



Great idea, I never thought of it like that!]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:09:25 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from ukBerty
I too would like to pay next to nothing to get rid of the watermark. I also want free beer and a jetpack.


Muvizu takes money to develop and unless Digimania come up with a workable system to produce a return for their efforts then development will eventually stop which is no good for any of us.


The fact that we can still make our videos in exactly the same quality for free maintains the status quo and gives this model time to settle down.


Like Toonarama I could immediately see that I would be overpaying due to the way I work and raised this during the launch presentation. The idea is that you prepare everything with the logo and once you have assembled it you go back and re-render just the segments you are using without the logo. Yes, I can see this as a massive production overhead as well but there we have it.


If you don't like the price then carry on as you were and we'll see how it all pans out.]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:02:30 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from piquet

Actually I'm pretty sure you can now get iclone4 free and still use it for commercial uses. It's the content packs you have to pay for.]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:00:54 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from toonarama piquet wrote:
How, exactly, is that a rude comment!?


Piquet

Unfortunately I think you have made a valid point but lost everybody by your dialogue (nasty, greedy etc).

It is valid to say that if you want to make a non-watermarked video it is going to cost you every time to make your video rather than with other software like ICLONE where you pay for it upfront but can then produce as many non-watermarked videos as you want at no additional cost.

I am not sure how the business models will compare but unless you are a business or have someone financing you I don't think that non-watermarked videos will ever be viable]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:49:20 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from piquet Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:42:11 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from MrDrWho13 piquet wrote:
Right!

I advise you to read ALL the posts above and not pick one post out of context!



I think you are being a bit rude to the people who are trying to help you. hmm]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:35:22 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from piquet
I advise you to read ALL the posts above and not pick one post out of context!]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:19:28 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from Dreeko piquet wrote:
Yes, but the charge is per video, so my original point stands.

You are just waffling.


Wrong!

I have made many videos using Muvizu, all of which are watermarked with the Muvizu logo and all videos have been made free at a resolution of 1280 x 720.

Now, if I still want to continue making videos with Muvizu as I have done happily before with the same quality (and now using more features!) I can still do so without spending a penny!

The only difference now is that today (if I wished to do so!) I can have the watermark removed for a price!
The only way this was possible before was to contact Muvizu yourself and negotiate with them on a case by case basis about the use of your video for commercial use with the logo removed.

Unless Pixar, the BBC or whoever approach me with a commercial proposition about one of my videos then I will have no need to remove the logo and therefore no need to part with any money.

In summary:

Can I still make videos of the same quality for FREE as before ....YES!!
Will I be out of pocket in any way....NO!!

The logo is there if you want to use Muvizu for free

Take it off and you pay.
It really is that simple.

Cheers
D]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:14:25 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from toonarama I think there is an issue with the way this has been implemented.
The vast majority of us (I would imagine) use Muvizu to shoot our scenes and then use an external video editor to perform our editing. Therefore you might end up producing perhaps 10 minutes of Muvizu clips and ending up with only 3 minutes of actual finished footage.

The payment method is charging you for the length of your Muvizu clips and will not equate to the length of the final video.

I could not work any differently therefore I don't envisage ever being able to justify paying for the non watermarked version unless i was comissioned to produce a video by someone with deep pockets.

Thanks

Toonarama]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:02:10 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from piquet
You should really try to resist jumping in before you understand what is written.]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:56:04 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from Marco_D
I was trying to show that you can do the exact same thing you were doing with the previous versions.
And also, how you could set your work flow in a way so you don't pay for every test you need to make.

Thanks for your feedback.

Regards,
Marco]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:45:04 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from piquet
You are just waffling.]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:40:38 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from Marco_D
If you are still testing your set, just use the free rendering and when all is ready to go, use the option that allows the removal of the watermark.
You can still do the exact same thing you would in the previous versions - for free.

Once your work is done, if you pay once and don't change anything, you can still keep publish the same work over and over without making more payments.

You really should do your research before posting.
If you have any questions please let us know. We are here to help.

Regards,
Marco
edited by Marco_D on 10/04/2013]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:36:30 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from piquet Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:30:05 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from ste_yeu urbanlamb wrote:
you publish inside muvizu and it will calculate how much to charge you. If you go into the video publish section you choose from the menu watermark free and size and then it calculates price and you press a button and it takes you to a payment page

Thank you, urbanlamb. In fact it's easy. ]]> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:54:52 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from urbanlamb Tue, 09 Apr 2013 23:52:48 GMT http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2626-watermark-new-terms-of-use.aspx Message from ste_yeu
I can't understand how to calculate the price for watermark-free videos. For example: if I make a video of 10 minutes, it costs (offer) £ 50 or £ 150 for high quality, right?

To determine a video duration I need to publish it with the watermark before? When will watermark be removed?
Thanks in advance.]]> Tue, 09 Apr 2013 23:30:27 GMT