MPEG-LA Licensing agreement mess. Pay royalty for each h.264 video you shoot & make $

[Harva Raj]

http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Wh...by_the_MPEG-LA


some excerpt from the post.

You see, there is something very important, that the vast majority of both consumers and video professionals don't know: ALL modern video cameras and camcorders that shoot in h.264 or mpeg2, come with a license agreement that says that you can only use that camera to shoot video for "personal use and non-commercial" purposes (go on, read your manuals). I was first made aware of such a restriction when someone mentioned that in a forum, about the Canon 7D dSLR. I thought it didn't apply to me, since I had bought the double-the-price, professional (or at least prosumer), Canon 5D Mark II. But looking at its license agreement last night (page 241), I found out that even my $3000 camera comes with such a basic license. So, I downloaded the manual for the Canon 1D Mark IV, which costs $5000, and where Canon consistently used the word "professional" and "video" on the same sentence on their press release for that camera. Nope! Same restriction: you can only use your professional video dSLR camera (professional, according to Canon's press release), for non-professional reasons. And going even further, I found that even their truly professional video camcorder, the $8000 Canon XL-H1A that uses mpeg2, also comes with the exact same restriction. You can only use your professional camera for non-commercial purposes. For any other purpose, you must get a license from MPEG-LA and pay them royalties for each copy sold.

[Tom.Wong]

Should explain that to the producers of house...and 24, and all the features, commercials and music videos that are out there. :)

i think it's crossed the line way too far and for way too long now for this to affect anybody deciding to shoot on canon cameras.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

You can use the H264 for anything. You can't *distribute* the H264 files without paying a licensing fee.

For anything less than I believe 90 minutes in length that licensing fee is $0 and requires no paperwork. Since a Canon can only record in 12 minute segments that means it's impossible to violate the license.

[Justin Chin]

You can use the H264 for anything. You can't *distribute* the H264 files without paying a licensing fee.

That's my understanding as well. If you read the manual:

"About MPEG-4 Licensing
This product is licensed under AT&T patents for the MPEG-4 standard and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under the AT&T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video. No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-4 standard."

This is pretty much a standard. Transcode and deliver in the format of your choice (or agreed license).

[Harva Raj]

You can use the H264 for anything. You can't *distribute* the H264 files without paying a licensing fee.

You didn't read the article right? (The law) says even when you trascode the original file to something else the you still have to pay the royalty. The restriction applies the moment you pressed that "REC" button on your camera.

Since a Canon can only record in 12 minute segments that means it's impossible to violate the license.

have you heard of the term EDITING ?

[Michael Hastings]

It will be amusing to see them try to enforce.

[Justin Chin]

I read the article. There are some interesting things in it ("facts" would be a stretch).

"The law" as you put it, doesn't say that I have to pay a royalty to transcode my footage when I edit it. The "law" only can protect the patent holder and it's claims. When buying and using any device and software (that includes the codec for use) the patent holder is paid based on a license between with the manufacturer of said device or software.

As a user who paid for that device or software (HD-DVD player, BlueRay, Canon, Sony, Vimeo, Youtube etc.) I can use those patents within the purview of the device or software. When I take it out of that window and deliver a product (film, DVD, stream etc.) I then must use a codec that I either paid for, or that is free to use.

That is generally how it worked before. I had to deal with plenty of this in my previous 20 years in the video game industry. Now I'm not a lawyer (despite my lawyer telling me I should be one), and neither is Eugenia so, as they say, your milage may vary.

If I'm wrong I'd be surprised because this would go against everything I've learned before, and I would also have a hard time seeing a court interpreting the basic arena of contract law differently than they have before.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

There is no commercial intent on the file unless you are selling the H264 files themselves (and they're longer than 12 minutes).

If I open something I encoded non-commercially I'm non-commercially decoding the file when I open it to edit it. Commercially implies that I'm profiting in some way. I don't in any way profit in the process of editing a video. I only profit once I attempt to sell said footage. At which point I better not be selling an h264 without a license.

[Justin Chin]

What Gavin said is much simpler than what I said.

[michael zaletel]

Are we debating the law or the likelihood of being sued? The law seems pretty clear whether people agree with it or not.

-michael zaletel