GH2 not for professional use?

J

Jockomo

Well-known member
I was looking through the manual for the GH2 and on the last page something caught my eye.

It is a section that describes the licensing of the various technologies. It says:

This product is licensed under the AVC patent portfolio license for the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer to (i) encode video in compliance with the AVC Standard ("AVC Video") and/or (ii) decode AVC Video that was encoded by a consumer engaged in a personal and non-commercial activity and/or was obtained from a video provider licensed to provdie AVC Video. NO license is granted or shall be implied for any other use. Additional information may be obtained from MPEG LA, LLC

So, technically speaking, you can't use this camera professionally?
 
Yikes. This is not good. This seems to imply that if you make a film with this, you cannot then profit from it commercially. That's a pretty serious problem for anyone hoping to do anything other than personal non-commercial type stuff. I'm surprised people didn't light on this immediately, because this is quite a limitation - I mean, if that's true, then it's instantly a no-go purchase for me! Any lawyers want to chime in?
 
what are they gonna do really? and isn't this just for the use of AVCHD codec on the unit not content produced?
 
Last edited:
OldCorpse said:
Yikes. This is not good. This seems to imply that if you make a film with this, you cannot then profit from it commercially. That's a pretty serious problem for anyone hoping to do anything other than personal non-commercial type stuff. I'm surprised people didn't light on this immediately, because this is quite a limitation - I mean, if that's true, then it's instantly a no-go purchase for me! Any lawyers want to chime in?
Click to expand...
Uh......surely you jest?
 
uh yeah how about you just don't tell anyone what camera you shot the movie with and then they can't do anything. Or simply lie if it's such a huge problem. If you want to sell your film just say you shot it with a canon 5d or red one. Who is going to question you? Is a panasonic investigator going to come to your house? LOL
 
Ian-T said:
Uh......surely you jest?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Legal issues have nothing to do with "common sense" - you absolutely cannot assume anything, you must have a legal opinion. Note, what just happened with the very MPEG LA, LLC entity that holds the patents... they just went submarine on Google - that shows you the danger of "assuming" anything about legal issues. Even Google thought they were in the clear. Shows you what that's worth - you wanna bet your chips on being 100% certain you are in the clear legally?! Wow, you like to live dangerously. Are you 100% certain Panasonic will indemnify you for all use of this codec and all its elements against all possible patent claims or rights claims? Ha, ha. So to answer your question: not only "no", but "hell, no!!!". ALWAYS clear legal issues. Always. No exceptions.
 
You shouldn't break wind in public either .. but people still do it.
 
Last edited:
OldCorpse said:
Absolutely not. Legal issues have nothing to do with "common sense" - you absolutely cannot assume anything, you must have a legal opinion. Note, what just happened with the very MPEG LA, LLC entity that holds the patents... they just went submarine on Google - that shows you the danger of "assuming" anything about legal issues. Even Google thought they were in the clear. Shows you what that's worth - you wanna bet your chips on being 100% certain you are in the clear legally?! Wow, you like to live dangerously. Are you 100% certain Panasonic will indemnify you for all use of this codec and all its elements against all possible patent claims or rights claims? Ha, ha. So to answer your question: not only "no", but "hell, no!!!". ALWAYS clear legal issues. Always. No exceptions.
Click to expand...
Here's what I consider a good option for you....

....Shoot uncompressed HDMI out. :)
 
OldCorpse said:
Absolutely not. Legal issues have nothing to do with "common sense" - you absolutely cannot assume anything, you must have a legal opinion. Note, what just happened with the very MPEG LA, LLC entity that holds the patents... they just went submarine on Google - that shows you the danger of "assuming" anything about legal issues. Even Google thought they were in the clear. Shows you what that's worth - you wanna bet your chips on being 100% certain you are in the clear legally?! Wow, you like to live dangerously. Are you 100% certain Panasonic will indemnify you for all use of this codec and all its elements against all possible patent claims or rights claims? Ha, ha. So to answer your question: not only "no", but "hell, no!!!". ALWAYS clear legal issues. Always. No exceptions.
Click to expand...

If you really want to worry about this, you could just say you recorded to mpeg or decline to mention what camera you used at all. Legal issues are tough, but Panasonic isn't Big Brother. There isn't a sensor in the GH2 that alerts them everytime you use it.
 
Guys, if you think I'm crazy and paranoid, go ahead and shoot the messenger. All I can tell you is that when I started working at a talent agency way back when, one of the agents I was working for was a woman who ran business affairs (she was a lawyer) for the agency. I learned a healthy respect for what can bite you in the behind, legally, when it totally seems unintuitive and utterly insane - when it comes to the law and lawyers and lawsuits and money, anything is possible. I'm not saying "let it paralyze you", I'm saying "better be too paranoid than not paranoid enough" when it comes to legal issues - I've seen many actors/directors/writers/talent devastated or not making what they should have, because they didn't have a lawyer go over their paperwork and dot all the i's and cross all the t's. I'm just warning you that there's a cliff ahead - if you want to shoot me, go ahead and race toward the cliff. Be forewarned. I'd really prefer to get a legal opinion from the rights holders legal department here, not a bunch of folks speculating on a board. Better safe than sorry.
 
OldCorpse said:
Guys, if you think I'm crazy and paranoid, go ahead and shoot the messenger. All I can tell you is that when I started working at a talent agency way back when, one of the agents I was working for was a woman who ran business affairs (she was a lawyer) for the agency. I learned a healthy respect for what can bite you in the behind, legally, when it totally seems unintuitive and utterly insane - when it comes to the law and lawyers and lawsuits and money, anything is possible. I'm not saying "let it paralyze you", I'm saying "better be too paranoid than not paranoid enough" when it comes to legal issues - I've seen many actors/directors/writers/talent devastated or not making what they should have, because they didn't have a lawyer go over their paperwork and dot all the i's and cross all the t's. I'm just warning you that there's a cliff ahead - if you want to shoot me, go ahead and race toward the cliff. Be forewarned.
Click to expand...

No one is shooting you or jumping off a cliff.

I'd really prefer to get a legal opinion from the rights holders legal department here, not a bunch of folks speculating on a board.
Click to expand...

Why are you speculating on a board then?
 
Why are you speculating on a board then?

I'm not. I say: it's unclear what the situation is, and the possibility of trouble exists. Which is perfectly true, and no speculation - it's fact. Furthermore, I asked whether anyone qualified (i.e. a lawyer) might want to chime in. That's not speculation. That's an invitation to clarify the issue.
 
I'm not concerned about getting "busted" by MPEGLA; but if I am technically infringing on someone's rights I would at least like to know about it. (And no, I don't expect real legal advice from dvxuser - I just thought it would be an interesting discussion) Indeed it's most likely a non-issue.

It is after all a "consumer" camera sold by the "consumer" division of Panasonic, as opposed to say the AF100. It sounds like there may be different licensing schemes for AVCHD and perhaps part of the expense for the AF100 would be a "professional" license. (I certainly wouldn't put it past corporate lawyers to pull something like this and you only need to look as far as RIAA to find what a bunch of blood sucking lawyers would do to protect the rights of people who didn't even ask for their help.)

oh, btw, awesome sig rambooc1
 
Thanks everyone I just sent my 4 GH2's back to B&H and got a full refund because I became too worried that Panasonic would incarcerate me for shooting my music video with the GH2. I am now going to the store to purchase a 60D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top