Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

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

Because this whole thing is rather upsetting to me (even though it doesn't apply to RED), I asked the MPEG-LA people for clarification.

They confirmed to me that there was no charge for free content web use, even with ads. Ads don't matter, whether the customer pays matters.

There is no charge at all for businesses with revenues from this content broadcast/sale of under $100k.

I played with the calculator and if you made $1,000,000 in revenues you would owe about $2,500.

So the charges are obviously inconvenient to pay and confusing but not particularly onerous. I don't like the precedent, because it still somehow seems wrong that you have to pay at all, but this is not something that will bankrupt anyone.

D
 
From Wikipedia:

Patent licensing

In countries where patents on software algorithms are upheld, vendors and commercial users of products which make use of H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology[8] that their products use. This applies to the Baseline Profile as well.[9] A private organization known as MPEG LA, which is not affiliated in any way with the MPEG standardization organization, administers the licenses for patents applying to this standard, as well as the patent pools for MPEG-2 Part 1 Systems, MPEG-2 Part 2 Video, MPEG-4 Part 2 Video, and other technologies. The last US MPEG LA patents for H.264 may not expire until 2028[10].
On February 2, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31, 2015.[11] However, other fees remain in place. The license terms are updated in 5-year blocks.[12]
In 2005, Qualcomm, which was the assignee of US Patents 5,452,104,[13] and 5,576,767[14] sued Broadcom in US District Court, alleging that Broadcom infringed the two patents by making products that were compliant with the H.264 video compression standard.[15] In 2007, the District Court found that the patents were unenforceable because Qualcomm had partially withheld information from the United States Patent and Trademark Office prior to the release of the H.264 standard in May 2003.[15] In December 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's order that the patents be unenforceable but remanded to the District Court with instructions to limit the scope of unenforceability to H.264 compliant products.[15]
[edit]Features
 
FORUM http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44641&page=3
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=t...q=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=ba6977bd596143c7

'maybe you're misreading it' post
http://www.osnews.com/thread?422144

Hello I am a wedding videographer in Australia and I have been using 5dmk2 for my wedding videos for a whilenow and only found out about this in a photography forum today.
I am disgusted and appauled. I never saw it til now.
It is on page 218 of the 5dmk2 manual which can be found online on bhphotovideo.com website.
For a start this should be written clearly and large on the box, because I feel like they are tricking people into purchasing the product without advertising the licence!
Photoshop you will find has their licence on the box.. so do most things!
Now how do I call Mpeg-LA? how do I get clarification from them?
I tried googling them but no contact.
Somebody has said here "There is no charge at all for businesses with revenues from this content broadcast/sale of under $100k"
A calculator was provided
http://www.streamcrest.com/License Calculator9.html
PLUS THE http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/m2/pages/AgreementExpress.aspx

somebody else has said
Canon are aware of this pending issue and changes will be made in their next firmware update
Who told you this? where is this written?
Are canon going to create a firmware update that makes the camera run on free codecs?
Canon seem to be pretty happy with the setup since they printed it on page 218 of the 5dmk2 manual!

Just emailed MPEGLA
 
Codecs and licenses

Codecs and licenses

How does Panasonic's AVCHD codec fit into this picture?
 
I await the day when these camera's have a credit card swiper installed to pay royalties before you shoot... maybe even add an auto debit in the post process

lol
 
Here is a better article on the matter:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html?tag=mncol

A quote from the article:
"Per Section 3.1.2 of the AVC License (Title-by-Title AVC Video), the royalty for each title greater than 12 minutes in length is 2.0 percent of the remuneration paid to the Licensee or $0.02 per title, whichever is lower. In other words, the royalty would not exceed $0.02 per disc for the videographer," said MPEG LA spokesman Tom O'Reilly.

But practical matters also factor into the likelihood of actual enforcement--for example in the situation in which a Windows 7 user watches H.264 video.
"Realistically, it's unlikely that a consumer who unwittingly plays a video clip from an unlicensed source is going to be pursued by MPEG-LA or by patent owners. The legal framework for patent damages is different than it is in the copyright area, so you're not likely to see lawsuits against ordinary consumers, like some of the highly publicized suits filed by the RIAA [Recording Industry of America] in the United States," Homiller said.
Another way where professionals can get off the hook for payments is if the video is broadcast for free over the Internet. Earlier this year, MPEG LA extended through 2015 a provision that means streaming H.264 video over the Net requires no royalty payments as long as anyone can see the video without paying.

Ultimately, for the license terms one sees in software, MPEG LA errs on the side of sounding tough.
"The purpose of the provision in the MPEG LA license is to ensure that the license doesn't cover commercial distribution of H.264-encoded video," Homiller said. "It would be nice if there were a 'gentler' way to convey this, but it might be challenging to do so without opening up some loopholes that the licensers would regret."
Click to expand...

In this ease-of-use world we often forget that there are people who need to earn .02 cents for their efforts. This is the type of thing that comes into collision with the "general public" when technology patents enter into the "hobbyist/consumer" realm.

At least for online streaming and VOD's there looks to be an opportunity for someone to develop a codec for free use (much like DiVX and such).
 
Is it me, or does news of all this seem very wrong? Even after initial investment in "Pro"equipment, do we still need to pay an after-the fact licensing fee if we encounter commercial success (in the form of distribution)? Seems like they are advertising and selling "pro" equipment for amateur use only. WOW!

Would someone from RED please let us know if RED is, or is planning to follow this model? Please? Apologies for any presumptions.
 
Michael Ou said:
Is it me, or does news of all this seem very wrong? Even after initial investment in "Pro"equipment, do we still need to pay an after-the fact licensing fee if we encounter commercial success (in the form of distribution)? Seems like they are advertising and selling "pro" equipment for amateur use only. WOW!

Would someone from RED please let us know if RED is, or is planning to follow this model? Please? Apologies for any presumptions.
Click to expand...

Would you rather they charge you all the time even when it's not successful? They wrote the license explicitly as they could so that only large distributors such as Dish Network, Comcast and BluRay would be affected. If you wanted simple... they could just charge you an extra fee on everything even if you don't intend to release it commercially. I'm sure they wouldn't mind.

Seems like a case of complaining that we're getting something for free.

"What!? You are only giving us a free demo for 30 days!? How is this professional software?"
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Would you rather they charge you all the time even when it's not successful? They wrote the license explicitly as they could so that only large distributors such as Dish Network, Comcast and BluRay would be affected. If you wanted simple... they could just charge you an extra fee on everything even if you don't intend to release it commercially. I'm sure they wouldn't mind.

Seems like a case of complaining that we're getting something for free.

"What!? You are only giving us a free demo for 30 days!? How is this professional software?"
Click to expand...


Pardon my naivete, if I thought that spending thousands of dollars on a pro camera that was advertised as such, is actually limited to amateur use only. Just a little surprised. BTW, never indicated that I want anything for free. Just let me know about the charge BEFORE I buy, and produce in that format is all.
 
Michael Ou said:
Pardon my naivete, if I thought that spending thousands of dollars on a pro camera that was advertised as such, is actually limited to amateur use only. Just a little surprised. BTW, never indicated that I want anything for free. Just let me know about the charge BEFORE I buy, and produce in that format is all.
Click to expand...

As has been stated numerous times above. You can capture all you want. Just don't distribute in that format.
 
Nice deflect by the way, still does not answer my original question. Is Red following or plans to follow this model?
 
Michael Ou said:
Nice deflect by the way, still does not answer my original question. Is Red following or plans to follow this model?
Click to expand...
Until there's some way for people to distribute their Redcode content directly to consumers, that's not really a concern for Redusers. Maybe when Red releases their Red Ray technology.
 
C'mon, use another codec from post on...


C.A.Alan said:
http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/W..._Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_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.
Click to expand...
 
If you distribute on DVD or Blu-Ray and have your discs produced by a commercial duplicating service the royalties are usually paid by the duplicator and included in the price. That is the only point it really impacts us at this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top