Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: MPEG-LA commercial licensing

  1. #1
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    MPEG-LA commercial licensing

    Here's an interesting article on the problematic license terms for MPEG codecs.

    In summary, the article states that many pro-level video recording devices do not come with a commercial license of the codec that encodes to MPEG. This means that anyone making commercial products that originate from such a codec can be liable to pay licensing fees to the rights holder of the codec. Notably, this includes Canon DSLR cameras.

    "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."

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

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    102
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MPEG-LA commercial licensing

    Interesting ... yes ... is it correct?

    Read this entire thread:

    http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.ph...st=0&sk=t&sd=a

    Especially the last several posts on the 3rd. page.

    Also see: http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/k...nsing-and-you/

    The only things in life that are really sure are "... death and taxes ..." but I really wouldn't stay awake at night worrying about whether you are violating the terms of the H.264 codec license if you are using your 5D2 or 7D for commercial purposes.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: MPEG-LA commercial licensing

    Thanks for the links.

    It seems that the patent license holder says that there's nothing to worry about until you broadcast.

    It's also one of those cases where the wording of the license is draconian, whereas the license holder says "nah, we wouldn't be that bad, would we?" Not the first time I see this (Google and others have done the same) and it's getting tiring. Oh well.

    This is probably for practical reasons - it's easier to squeeze the broadcaster for fees than an individual film maker.
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •