GH2 not for professional use?

The licensing terms summarized below are for informational purposes only. They are not an offer to license and may
not be relied upon for any purpose <--- That is hilarious!

Even more hilarious is how they're nonetheless getting ready to have Google bend over and get some loving from the wooly mammoth, per the link I provided earlier. And as outside lawyers observed, their position is much stronger than Google's.
 
If you are a stand up citizen I suggest that you put away your GH2 right now, and walk away from it slowly. Start baking cakes and selling them for a living. Or collect cans for the 5 cents refund. Start designing webs maybe. Do anything but making all the blockbuster films you were planing with it. I can't believe how everyday is something new and catastrophic with people and these new cameras. Banding, mud, jello, moise, worms, bed bugs. Anything to stop the individual from taking the camera and just filming away.
 
I was lawyer in my country. And also nurse. Big company can do anything it want. Don't matter about law. They grind you up like meat and makes you do what they want. You can't fight them. You will lose because they have army, you have hotdog stand. Don't bother ask panasonic. Today answer is yes, in one month they change mind sent army of men with briefcase. You lose. There no answer here. Best you stick gaffner tape on gh2 label and write "scarlet" and deliver in dnx format. Make your movie! Lol!
 
John Caballero said:
I can't believe how everyday is something new and catastrophic with people and these new cameras...
Click to expand...

I find it funny that people get so offended when others choose to debate minor aspects of a camera.

The truth is, ignorance is rarely the best solution. When a client asks what that blue line through the middle of the screen is, I'd rather know what it is and how to fix it than to stand there scratching my head like an idiot.

Having people find "new and catastrophic" things about the camera and how to deal with them ultimately saves me time and adds to my expertise at using a tool. Personally I appreciate it.
 
I'm just not seeing the scenario where a person shoots a film entirely with the GH2, brags about it, and is sued by Panasonic. I don't think this is something people should worry about and definitely not something that should keep people from getting this camera for professional use.
 
John Caballero said:
If you are a stand up citizen I suggest that you put away your GH2 right now, and walk away from it slowly. Start baking cakes and selling them for a living.
Click to expand...

Actually I think Monsanto may own the patent to the good baking wheat under a patent that was granted in the US in 1999 and in Europe in 2003 as EP 445929 . Though you could most likely bake and consume a cake for your own personal use, you may be infringing on Monsanto if you were to actually try to sell said cake. Monsanto also owns the patent to 12,000 other seed varieties that occur in nature. It would probably be best to consult with a lawyer before turning on your oven. :-)
 
f64manray said:
Actually I think Monsanto may own the patent to the good baking wheat under a patent that was granted in the US in 1999 and in Europe in 2003 as EP 445929 . Though you could most likely bake and consume a cake for your own personal use, you may be infringing on Monsanto if you were to actually try to sell said cake. Monsanto also owns the patent to 12,000 other seed varieties that occur in nature. It would probably be best to consult with a lawyer before turning on your oven. :-)
Click to expand...

Yes, I've been burned by this once too many times.
 
In my country I was lawyer and nurse also. We have joke that lawyer is the one who is eating metal with sharks! Lol!
 
I'm no expert (I'm only 19) but I really don't think that this is the case. I remember reading somewhere about this applying to MPEG-4. AVCHD uses MPEG-4 AVC/H.264, H.264 also being what Canon use. As we all know Black Swan used 5d's and 7d's for various scenes, and was a commercial success. For all we know, the maker's could of paid the license fee's, however I doubt they did as despite the fact they had a $13 million dollar budget, which I imagine could quite easily pay for the license and a permit to shoot underground, they decided to shoot underground using a 7D without paying for a permit. Not really sure if this makes sense as reading it back it sounds a bit disjointed to me. Here's the link btw;
http://poetzerofilm.com/2010/05/h-264-and-the-death-of-digital-filmmaking/
 
Last edited:
That is perfect lawyer-speak. Not unlike "this sentence is a lie."

And now a confession. I don't read the "terms and conditions" of online downloads or sign-ups before agreement. Living on the edge, baby.

RBG



Jockomo said:
Oh I see. It's very simple, as shown in this
SUMMARY OF AVC/H.264 LICENSE TERMS *1

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf

*1
The licensing terms summarized below are for informational purposes only. They are not an offer to license and may
not be relied upon for any purpose <--- That is hilarious!
Click to expand...
 
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...

You also might want to refrain from posting, linking, emailing and transferring any video files via a network. There are several companies that claim to own right regarding these actions. I once worked at a company that had 60 PC's capturing 12 hours a day. They used USB drive to upload via a different computer because Acacia owned the rights to uploading from the computer you encoded on. Read the license for FDP, DVD studio Pro, Soundtrack, and almost any other editing program. You might be surprised.

Good Luck avoiding somebody wanting your money.
 
This is so simple... How could anyone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you recorded to SD card and not through the HDMI? They can't and wouldn't even try because they know they'd have no case.
 
Mr atl ! That what I try and esplain! Big Company don't need to prove anything! You can't fought them!! You will lose if they want you. You will give them what they want. You are like insect for them. They will bite your head off and smoke your girlfriend! Omg!
ATL Media Group said:
This is so simple... How could anyone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you recorded to SD card and not through the HDMI? They can't and wouldn't even try because they know they'd have no case.
Click to expand...
 
NEED BAIL MONEY FAST!!!! i don't want to get into too many details, as it could hurt my case. Here's a brief summary of how I got busted. I was shooting a beautiful sunset early sat. eve. Just as I was putting my new GH2 in the bag, I noticed a guy coming towards me. Not thinking anything wrong, I said hi. He didn't respond, he said "what are you shooting". I said a sunset, Then he asked if I was going to post it to utube because he thought it was one of the best he had ever seen. So when I said yes, he made a strange movement with his arm. Suddenly ten guys came from behind the sand dunes. All wearing the same PANASONIC POLICE uniform. They said I was part of the Utube sponsorship program and that they had to arrest me for making professional vids that I could profit from. Needless to say, I need bail money. Oh and thay said I cant have my camera back because I was using it for professional use. I said "keep it"!!, the banding is driving me crazy anyways.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top