Why Our Civilization's Video Art and Culture is Threatened by the MPEG-LA

[fabric]

http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA&rss=linux

Found this article and it seems that one has to watch what is put out depending on the encoding the camera uses...

[...]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).
[...]
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.

Something to keep in mind should you use a camera that shoot h.264 or mpeg2.

 

[Nathan]

a) She's wrong about everything apart from the case of YouTube/Vimeo potentially being in breach of the "platform/content provider" section of the licence. But they get around that in a sense because you don't have to be a subscriber to view their videos. See here for summary:
_http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf
For example, if you have a subscriber-only viewership (such as cable TV) there is a ceiling that you reach whereupon you start paying MPEG-LA for each subscriber (something like 250,000 subscribers who have been subscribed for at least three months) and you pay about 25c per subscriber and the higher you go the more the price will increase.
b) This article ignores the one and most important part of the argument. Market share. If they acted on such a patent, no one would buy a product that uses h.264 or MPEG-2. It would be suicide.
c) Kodak still have an active patent on KodaChrome Gold 35mm reversal film.

What she's saying about the license agreement for personal devices is not in the MPEG-LA usage license. That section refers to manufacturers who pay a license fee to MPEG-LA to use the codecs in devices and equipment. It would only apply to a purchaser of the equipment if they then went on to use the electronics for a commercial purpose other than the intended one built by the manufacturer. For example, you can't buy 1000 HDV handycams, tear out the encoder chips and use them in something else like a huge cluster or something and then make a profit from it. In the same way it was fine for that guy to make a small super computer out of Playstation 2s for processing astrological data at Uni, but as soon as he started renting it out for compositing and visual effects, Sony came down on him hard.

The only thing I agree with here is that MJPEG is horrid to work with. :P

 

[fabric]

Thanks for clearing that up :) I wasn't too sure since it seemed in potential that they could go after someone should they decide too. So it's basically more to do with the equipment rather than the file you have after you made a video/photo.

 

[Nathan]

What she's wrong about is the license for the decoder chip inside the camera. She is implying that the customer pays for this. But that's not the case. The manufacturer pays for this. It doesn't matter what codec the camera is using, it's what codec you distribute with. The section (below) applies to them.

(4) A royalty of $2.50 (US) from January 1, 2002 /$6.00 before January 1, 2002 per unit applies to Consumer Products (defined in Section 1.4) such as camcorders, read/write DVD players, computers and/or software, etc having both encoding and decoding capabilities (Section 3.1.3).

_http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/Agreement.aspx

So it's basically more to do with the equipment rather than the file you have after you made a video/photo.

It's about your distribution codec. If you run a subscriber-only Vimeo-like website with over 100,000 subscribers and you're using h.264 (which is pretty much the standard today for online video), you will need to start paying a rising amount, starting with 2 cents per title. There is also a similar section in place for pay-per-view. But if you're producing DVDs, then yes, you legally need to pay for the license of the MPEG-2 codec that is exclusive to the DVD disc. For example, if you are editing the content on Final Cut Studio, then your purchase of Studio comes with the licenses to produce your work using the codecs that it can export with, such as Apple ProRes and probably MPEG-2 and h.264 as well. But it does not give you the license to distribute.

Bear in mind that this is targeted towards large replicators and distributors (moving millions of copies per week). MPEG-LA logistically cannot target every little video producer in the world, it would take them a million years to chase everyone up. If you're producing enough copies that you would need to start paying licenses for the codecs used on those discs, then you'd be looking for a distributor anyway. And the distributor takes care of these costs (it's built into their prices for distribution). Since they are a reputable distributor, they don't sneak around licensing in case MPEG-LA decide to audit them. However, I'm quite sure evangelical churches distribute their latest "Praise The Lord: The Reckoning" DVDs and internally distribute this to 500,000 devout church-goers, then MPEG-LA could have a case there.

So, if you want to cover your bases and be super-careful, which pretty much no one does but nonetheless, then you'd be up for about 1 cent per copy sold. But you could just as easily have your legal situation evaluated. Reading through the terms a little more carefully, you might find there is a beginning amount of copies sold before you have to start paying. Another words, I think you have to be big enough. (I'm guessing here, you'd have to order a free hardcopy - all 400 pages - from: _http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/AgreementExpress.aspx to confirm this.). See below for a summary:

(3) For MPEG-2 Packaged Medium, the royalty is $0.03 from March 1, 2003 for the first MPEG-2 Video Event per copy (US $0.04 before Sept. 1, 2001, $0.035 from Sept. 1, 2001 – Feb. 28, 2003), but $0.0176 during 2010 and $0.016 after 2010 from the later of January 1, 2010 or execution date of the new extended License, plus $0.01 for each additional 30 minutes or portion recorded on the same copy, but not to exceed (a) US $0.03 from March 1, 2003 for a Single Movie (US $0.04 before September 1, 2001, $0.035 from September 1, 2001 – Feb. 28, 2003) or $0.0176 during 2010 and $0.016 after 2010 from the later of January 1, 2010 or execution date of the new extended License, plus (b) US $0.02 for the second Movie recorded on the same copy as the first Movie, and (c) US $0.01 for each copy having a normal playing time up to and including but not more than 12 minutes of video programming encoded into an MPEG-2 compliant format (Sections 2.3 and 3.1.4.-3.1.4.3). "MPEG-2 Video Event" (Section 1.20) is a unit of video information having a normal playing time of any length up to and including 133 minutes, and "Movie" (Section 1.9) is a single motion picture and related materials but not a second motion picture whether or not related.

To make it easier for Licensees to account for their MPEG-2 Packaged Medium royalties, Section 3.1.7 provides that for discs from September 1, 2005 forward, Licensees may elect a simplified option for reporting MPEG-2 Packaged Medium royalties under which they pay the applicable MPEG-2 Video Event rate for each MPEG-2 video disc regardless of its specific content or playing time (except where the playing time is 12 minutes or less in which case the royalty would continue to be $0.01). By choosing this option, Licensees may avoid having to distinguish between Movie and non-Movie content or otherwise accounting for the non-Movie playing time of MPEG-2 Packaged Medium, except where the playing time is 12 minutes or less. Please note, for example, that while the above License provisions allow Licensees to pay the applicable MPEG-2 Packaged Medium rate for two DVD discs consisting of one Movie and related materials, choosing this option will require Licensees to pay US $0.03 for each disc regardless.

 

[D69]

hey guys , i just got this link from a friend of mine , its all quite nicely explained there :

__http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/

 

[Nathan]

Thanks for that, drygol!

Here's a good bit:

Yes, if you're a pro and you somehow find yourself selling H.264 videos directly to end users you'll have to sign a license and potentially pay up, but hey -- if you're doing that you're running an actual business and you need to go talk to a real lawyer, not a disembodied third person Q&A on the internet.