Ok, this is NOT LEGAL ADVICE. This is my understanding, and I don't have the resources available right now to double check, but I thought this was relatively accepted:
- The patent license fee for h.264 used in the production of something for-profit, even if it were enforcceable, would only kick in once you're selling many many tens of thousands of units. I think it's even in the six figure range. - It's generally accepted (again, I'm not talking LEGALLY here) that the terms re commercial use in the camera licenses are included in that spirit of "put everything that might or might not legally apply for a wide range of purposes" and are probably unenforceable. The same terms apply to mpeg-2 (and by extension, HDV), which would mean that at this point multiple generations of indie filmmakers, wedding videographers, small-biz dvd distributors, and more would all be liable, as would anybody who burns dvds at home. Canon and Panasonic and Sony ALL sell camcorders in their PROFESSIONAL (meaning, we are selling this to you SO YOU CAN MAKE MONEY) divisions that use Mpeg-2 variants like HDV and XDCam, as well as h.264 and h.264-derived (AVCHD, AVCPro) codecs. Thousands of commercial productions are made with this equipment every month. THOUSANDS. I think the chances of this becoming a problem are about 1000-1, same as those of Mpeg-LA ever deciding to start charging end-users before their codec is rendered irrelevant by something else. It also has to be noted that Theora is still significantly behind h.264 in quality. The use of "Big Buck Bunny" in these codec tests is incredibly misleading. It's about the easiest damned thing to encode effectively of anything short of a well lit greenscreen with nothing happening in front of it. Brook On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 4:36 AM, elbowsofdeath <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I dont think its anything to do with NDAs, the issue for opensource > projects is not about the code being open, but the cost if the license fee > for using H.264. And certainly there may be an issue with them not being > able to control how many copies of their OS/app are out there due to > allowing everyone to redistribute it, although there may be an arrangement > where they can just pay one fee regardless of exactly how many users there > are, although this fee would likely be very large indeed. > > As for the commercial use issues, there is far more pragmatism than the > language of the license might suggest. If you dont charge for your stuff now > then its not an issue until at least 2016. If you do charge then it is an > issue already. For the grey areas such as whether advertising counts, its > likely that the burden falls on the video host, although again there are > some grey areas that currently dont matter but in a strict legal sense may > theoretically matter. > > As I mentioned when I first responded to the post about that article, it > does raise some interesting issues, Im not trying to dismiss all of them > completely. Im just saying it went well over the top, but I suppose if thats > what it takes to get peple to pay attention then so be it. > > And dont get me wrong, Im not happy that the state of online video formats > has gone this way, Im just keen not to get carried away, to remember what > different problems we used to have before H.264 dominated, and to separate > the theory from the reality. My view is also coloured by the inevitable > legal realities we have due to the state of intellectual property rights in > general in the world, and dont get my hopes up that any of the alternatives > offer a simple hassle-free alternative. > > Cheers > > Steve > > --- In [email protected] <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > "tom_a_sparks" <tom_a_spa...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected] <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote: > > > > > > I didn't think OSNews story was "hysterical", I thought it brought up > some valid points and after reading the Endgaget article there are still > very valid concerns. > > > > > > "To repeat the point: as an end user, you'll never have to think about > your legal liability over H.264, because there's no need for you to be > licensed unless you're distributing commercial content to other end users or > building an H.264 encoder. We'd venture a guess and say you're probably > using a licensed camera and software and uploading to services like YouTube > or Vimeo or Viddler, and that means you're totally in the clear." > > > > > > > What about the linux/FLOSS communtiy that wont get a license because of > the NDA (Non-disclosure agreement)? > > the end-user pays.... > > > > > So what if you self host your videos and have ads on your site, is that > commercial use? What if you create a DVD of your independent movie and use > the codec and then sell the DVD? Have I just distrubuted commercial content? > ( yeah, I know like the article said, get a lawyer) > > > > or use bittorrent to distrubuted the video, > > > > where dose non-commercial use end and commercial use start? > > > > > -- _______________________________________________________ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
