![]() ![]() The only real get out for the developers is if the terms and conditions agreed to upon purchase/ use of the software included a 'get out' clause in effect.Įmails from the developers also seems to be suggesting that they and thier software were responsible for the YouTubers channel growing, so the YouTuber sort of owes them a new collab. This would seem to be covered by advertising laws that state a product should resemble it's advert, ie if a burger shows two strips of bacon in the advert but on purchase only has one strip then that is a big nono (legal term there) unless the advert specificaly states bacon amount is variable. Does the original agreement point these factors out? The main issue I see is that the original product info made no inference that future udates and future upgrades were two different items and relied on two different licence methods, nor does the advert seem to mention a software version number. This is standard practice these days, so no surprise. (Email chain below)Įmail one after Daniel's post on twitter: Filmora has stayed quiet on this topic on social media but reached out via email to the YouTuber about this issue, while also trying to give him more money to partner again with them. They recently changed this from calling new versions "software updates" to "upgrades" so they don't have to honor their lifetime licenses they previously sold. Using the wayback machine, here is what their page said when buying a Lifetime license. Filmora promised at the time of purchase that They are now asking him to pay for the software again through a subscription plan. ![]() A YouTuber known as Daniel Batal, a video editing tips channel, has realized since their new software update that their Lifetime licenses they paid for a few years ago no longer are "Lifetime". Here's his YouTube video explaining what happened if you would rather watch it.įilmora recently released Filmora 12, a new version of their video editing software. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |