GH2 not for professional use?
- Thread starter Jockomo
- Start date
Found a good article on the subject.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/
This sums it up:
"First off, we've directly asked MPEG-LA whether or not using an H.264 camera simply to shoot video for a commercial purpose requires a license, and the answer is no. We've also asked whether an end user watching H.264 videos would ever have to pay or be licensed, and the answer to that question is also no. Yes, the license terms are worded poorly, but those are the answers straight from the patent horse's mouth. "
However:
" 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"
Video displayed on sites like Vimeo and Youtube are covered by those companies; they hold licenses with MPEGLA.
Also, this from the mpegla website: MPEG LA announced today that its AVC Patent Portfolio License will continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to end users (known as “Internet Broadcast AVC Video”) during the entire life of this License.
The end of the article sums up it up nicely:
"More seriously, it's obvious the MPEG-LA and its licensees should be clearer with customers about what's up with commercial licensing and who needs to pay for what. That hidden personal use fine print feels really sneaky, and pro users need to get some clarity on what's required of them -- you don't mess around with people's livelihoods in the fine print, you know? A clarification from the MPEG-LA and some bigger notices at the front of the manuals are needed in short order."
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/
This sums it up:
"First off, we've directly asked MPEG-LA whether or not using an H.264 camera simply to shoot video for a commercial purpose requires a license, and the answer is no. We've also asked whether an end user watching H.264 videos would ever have to pay or be licensed, and the answer to that question is also no. Yes, the license terms are worded poorly, but those are the answers straight from the patent horse's mouth. "
However:
" 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"
Video displayed on sites like Vimeo and Youtube are covered by those companies; they hold licenses with MPEGLA.
Also, this from the mpegla website: MPEG LA announced today that its AVC Patent Portfolio License will continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to end users (known as “Internet Broadcast AVC Video”) during the entire life of this License.
The end of the article sums up it up nicely:
"More seriously, it's obvious the MPEG-LA and its licensees should be clearer with customers about what's up with commercial licensing and who needs to pay for what. That hidden personal use fine print feels really sneaky, and pro users need to get some clarity on what's required of them -- you don't mess around with people's livelihoods in the fine print, you know? A clarification from the MPEG-LA and some bigger notices at the front of the manuals are needed in short order."
ATL Media Group
Veteran
You too huh?
My scenario was almost the same but at the last minute Kim and Chloe O'Brian sent me the schematics to the federal building where they were holding my GH2 and I was able to sneak in and steal it back after faking my own death. Luckily I had Bill Buchanan convince President Logan to release me with a full pardon after they retrieved the data from my encrypted sdhc card.
Exactly. This is how lawyers get you. First, let's forget the distraction of *Panasonic* being after you - it has nothing to do with Panasonic, it has to do with the fact that entities OTHER than Panasonic have rights associated with the codec, and Panasonic cannot indemnify you in case of getting sued by those others, like MPEG LA LLC - so forget Panasonic (that's for the idiots who keep going on about "Panasonic gonna get you, hyuk, hyuk, I made a funny!!!!LOL!!!). Because if they say:
"whether or not using an H.264 camera simply to shoot video for a commercial purpose requires a license, and the answer is no." that sounds fine... to a non-lawyer. You may think you are in the clear. But lawyers are all about sneaky details. And they could say "sure, shooting for commercial purposes doesn't require a license, but selling the resulting footage does!" - bingo they got you! Why? Because watch this move:
"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."
in other words, go ahead and shoot free of charge - for commercial purposes, private, entertainment, or the edification of the poor, all that's fine and free. But try to sell this footage and oops! We may come after you!
Again, when it comes to legal issues, don't mess with that stuff unless you get clearance from lawyers - that's why the legal department exists for productions, otherwise who would want to pay for lawyers if you don't need them? Fact is, you need them, and that's that.
That is why I think it is not paranoid to raise the issue. Again I'm not saying it should stop you from shooting or going ahead with your project. I'm saying: it would be good to have this cleared up.
"whether or not using an H.264 camera simply to shoot video for a commercial purpose requires a license, and the answer is no." that sounds fine... to a non-lawyer. You may think you are in the clear. But lawyers are all about sneaky details. And they could say "sure, shooting for commercial purposes doesn't require a license, but selling the resulting footage does!" - bingo they got you! Why? Because watch this move:
"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."
in other words, go ahead and shoot free of charge - for commercial purposes, private, entertainment, or the edification of the poor, all that's fine and free. But try to sell this footage and oops! We may come after you!
Again, when it comes to legal issues, don't mess with that stuff unless you get clearance from lawyers - that's why the legal department exists for productions, otherwise who would want to pay for lawyers if you don't need them? Fact is, you need them, and that's that.
That is why I think it is not paranoid to raise the issue. Again I'm not saying it should stop you from shooting or going ahead with your project. I'm saying: it would be good to have this cleared up.
Barry_Green
Moderator
We've been down this path before. This has been explored and discussed to death.
Look -- this has nothing to do with panasonic. This applies to EVERY MPEG camcorder on the market. It is part and parcel for MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. Doesn't matter if you're using a GH2 or a 60D or 5D or 7D or 1D or T3i. Any h.264 camcorder has the same patent restriction, whether it's a Sony NXCAM or an HPX3700 or an HMC40. They all have the same patent restrictions. And here's the funny part -- it also applies to MPEG-2! So that means every single HDV camera, every tapeless Sony XDCAM, every AVCHD and AVC-Intra camera, every NXCAM, every BetaSX and MPEG-IMX camera, and every single DSLR in existence, all have the same "problem". (excepting only maybe a few Nikons that record only in MJPG).
In other words -- every professional and prosumer camera and consumer camera on the market has the same licensing restriction. EVERY ONE OF THEM.
Still think it's a problem and the "panasonic police" are going to descend upon you? I really don't think so. Where are you supposed to turn anyway? To cell phones? Oh, wait, lots of them record in h.264 too. Oh, well, let's use the NanoFlash -- oops, that uses MPEG-2, which is also covered by MPEG-LA patents. Okay, hah! I know, I'll use the Ninja or the Ki Pro Mini, because certainly Apple's proprietary codec won't have any ... restrictions... right? Yeah, let us know how that works out.
Bottom line -- if you're recording footage directly onto SDHC cards, AND THEN SELLING THOSE SDHC CARDS, that's when you (apparently) need a license from MPEG-LA. If you're distributing the footage you recorded to an end user, unmodified, in its original format, that's the part that they're concerned about. So modify it. Edit your footage, and booyah -- problem disappears.
I am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of it after digging through this for a while.
Look -- this has nothing to do with panasonic. This applies to EVERY MPEG camcorder on the market. It is part and parcel for MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. Doesn't matter if you're using a GH2 or a 60D or 5D or 7D or 1D or T3i. Any h.264 camcorder has the same patent restriction, whether it's a Sony NXCAM or an HPX3700 or an HMC40. They all have the same patent restrictions. And here's the funny part -- it also applies to MPEG-2! So that means every single HDV camera, every tapeless Sony XDCAM, every AVCHD and AVC-Intra camera, every NXCAM, every BetaSX and MPEG-IMX camera, and every single DSLR in existence, all have the same "problem". (excepting only maybe a few Nikons that record only in MJPG).
In other words -- every professional and prosumer camera and consumer camera on the market has the same licensing restriction. EVERY ONE OF THEM.
Still think it's a problem and the "panasonic police" are going to descend upon you? I really don't think so. Where are you supposed to turn anyway? To cell phones? Oh, wait, lots of them record in h.264 too. Oh, well, let's use the NanoFlash -- oops, that uses MPEG-2, which is also covered by MPEG-LA patents. Okay, hah! I know, I'll use the Ninja or the Ki Pro Mini, because certainly Apple's proprietary codec won't have any ... restrictions... right? Yeah, let us know how that works out.
Bottom line -- if you're recording footage directly onto SDHC cards, AND THEN SELLING THOSE SDHC CARDS, that's when you (apparently) need a license from MPEG-LA. If you're distributing the footage you recorded to an end user, unmodified, in its original format, that's the part that they're concerned about. So modify it. Edit your footage, and booyah -- problem disappears.
I am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of it after digging through this for a while.
Last edited:
Thank you Barry! Yep, Barry nailed it - it has nothing but nothing to do with Panasonic, so the guys who think they're making clever jokes about the "Panasonic Police" can go back to their usual clown corner. It's a legal issue, and should be treated with respect and not moronic "jokes". I am glad Barry threw some light on this. Here's the key passage for me:
"Bottom line -- if you're recording footage directly onto SDHC cards, AND THEN SELLING THOSE SDHC CARDS, that's when you (apparently) need a license from MPEG-LA. If you're distributing the footage you recorded to an end user, unmodified, in its original format, that's the part that they're concerned about. So modify it. Edit your footage, and booyah -- problem disappears."
Now, much as I'm appreciative about this, I'm not going to lie here - I would be super happy if a qualified lawyer could simply confirm the above, and we can all go home happy. It's not stopping me, nor should it stop anyone else, but legal clarity is ALWAYS appreciated.
So thank you Barry, again, for providing a much needed context to all this.
"Bottom line -- if you're recording footage directly onto SDHC cards, AND THEN SELLING THOSE SDHC CARDS, that's when you (apparently) need a license from MPEG-LA. If you're distributing the footage you recorded to an end user, unmodified, in its original format, that's the part that they're concerned about. So modify it. Edit your footage, and booyah -- problem disappears."
Now, much as I'm appreciative about this, I'm not going to lie here - I would be super happy if a qualified lawyer could simply confirm the above, and we can all go home happy. It's not stopping me, nor should it stop anyone else, but legal clarity is ALWAYS appreciated.
So thank you Barry, again, for providing a much needed context to all this.
People jok because we know nothing to do about it. I was lawyer in my country so I know. I was also nurse. Lol! Giant company something like god. They are 100 steps ahead with any contingency. Only thing that matter is company's will. If they come for, once you figure out cost/benefit, you will surrender. No jok! Lol!
ATL Media Group
Veteran
Just for the record. my joke was making FUN of the idea that Panasonic or anyone else would come after you for using the camera.
It's ridiculous.
ATL Media Group
Veteran
Um. because you don't NEED to do anything about it! In the 20 or so years of using the mpeg codecs nobody.... NOBODY has been sued for using them for commercial gain. It's never happened... no big mean corporation is coming after you! Relax and shoot.
johnnyevil
Active member
Likihood of getting in trouble. Slim to none. However, if I understand correctly, these licenses have more to do with distribution than with capture.
That's what I'm try to say. If big shark really want to eat you, he will eat you. But no shark attack happen around here so no worry!
ATL Media Group
Veteran
Very true... So don't distribute on DVD or Blu-Ray.. hehe
Lets just all agree among ourselves to go back to mini-dv. easy editing, easy archiving, easy footage sharing with multiple users. Shoot widescreen and the end user wont know it isn't HD. Life was so much easier when the DVX was as good as it gets for most of us. No rolling shutter, decent low light, it goes on and on. Why did we all buy into the hype of HD, most tv still hasn't switched. Most distribution is still dvd. Streaming 480p looks nearly as good and uses a lot less bandwidth.
Send your 'useless' low hours DVX's to me, I'll gladly to put them to work.
Send your 'useless' low hours DVX's to me, I'll gladly to put them to work.