Legal problems with video from Canon SLRs?

N

no idea

Member
I don't know what to make of that paragraph in the manuals of Canon's DSLRS, e.g. their 7D:

"About MPEG-4 Licensing

This product is licensed under AT&T patents for the MPEG-4 standard and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under the AT&T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video. No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-4 standard."

This is greek to me, but it sounds like you can't use this camera for paid gigs. Does anyone know more about that?
 
No idea, how strange.

Couldn't be though. I mean, it could, but thousands of people make a living shooting photos with Canon cameras, why would they prevent people doing the same with video?
 
no idea said:
Canon is not in the position to allow the commercial exploitation of technology owned by someone else. Like the blurb says: "This product is licensed under AT&T patents".
Click to expand...

Exactly. But this is why I advocate open standards, and why I can't go there with the data I have to protect. Jpeg2000 is better in every way than H.264 and has none of these BS problems.
 
Mmmm .... I am very surprised but i doesn't look good .... we can't use Canon video encoding for paid jobs then ?
 
imgCatch%20me%20if%20you%20can%204.jpg
 
It just means that the buyer don't get a license to make other mpeg4 compliant devices or applications by purchasing a 7D (or any other product that you buy which utilizes mpeg4 encoding).
 
It's not an April Fools joke, it's in the manual, and it's in the manual of all AVCHD products. H.264 is protected by numerous patents, all of which are collectively licensed by MPEG-LA.

Here's the short of it -- unless you're a movie studio, you have nothing to worry about. What the license is really saying is you can't distribute the h.264 footage directly from the camera. So if you shot footage, and put the footage unmodified on a DVD and sold that DVD, you don't have a license to do that, you'd need to get a distribution license from MPEG-LA.

But it's not really a practical issue for any other than the major movie studios.

And yes, MPEG-2 has the same licensing issues.
 
I didn't think the wording in the manual was the April Fools joke, I was referring to the OP's interpretation (especially in light of this subject having been addressed earlier...several times).
 
Along the lines of Barry's post, you'll find that even MP3 has similar Terms and Conditions. If you dig into the codec owners licensing details, you'll find fees to the licensing owner kick-in at about $50,000 - the big studios, etc.

FYI - when we buy a camera, NLE software, audio editor, etc, the manufacturer has paid the owner of the codec a licensing fee. Obviously if everyone had to pay an additional licensing fee for casual to moderate business usage, no one would buy/use that blighted gear. So the licensors write their T&Cs to restrict additional licensing fees to those enjoying significant revenues streams (profit sharing).

Regards, Michael

This information is not a substitute for legal advice and counsel based upon facts and circumstances of a particular jurisdiction, use or situation.

Some information is subject to acceptance and qualification which may not be noted. Furthermore, application of this information may change and is subject to updates or revisions that may not apply in a specific jurisdiction or at a later point in time as information may become dated over time. No guarantee is given or made as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of this information.

Your use of this information is at your own risk. You assume full responsibility and risk of loss resulting from the use of this information. The author shall not liable for any direct, special, incidental, consequential or punitive damages, or any other damages whatsoever, whether the action of a direct or indirect party is involved, without limitation to negligence or otherwise relating to this information.


And oh, by the way, APRIL FOOLS <wink>
icon7.gif
 
Barry_Green said:
Here's the short of it -- unless you're a movie studio, you have nothing to worry about. What the license is really saying is you can't distribute the h.264 footage directly from the camera.
Click to expand...
This seems to imply that it would be no problem to distribute h.264 footage that was cut and edited on a computer, even if it was originally shot on a 7D. Why would that be so? Is it that editing software comes with a h.264 license for professional use, and this license sorta "heals" the limitations of the original license?

Barry_Green said:
But it's not really a practical issue for any other than the major movie studios.
Click to expand...

I hope you're correct with that. Some people may still remember the threat of lawsuits over having .GIFs on your website in the previous century. I would not exclude the possibility that history repeats itself, at this point.

Speaking of which, in the meantime I asked Canon support in Germany (Germany because that's where I live) whether or not I can use the 5D MkII to shoot wedding or music videos for a fee, and they all but confirmed my interpretation. That is to say, they basically ducked the question and went on to say that the terms of the license are essentially valid and binding, and that they can neither change it nor say anything about it, because they don't own it. They can only recommend to contact AT&T for further details.
 
no idea said:
[...]
Speaking of which, in the meantime I asked Canon support in Germany (Germany because that's where I live) whether or not I can use the 5D MkII to shoot wedding or music videos for a fee, and they all but confirmed my interpretation. That is to say, they basically ducked the question and went on to say that the terms of the license are essentially valid and binding, and that they can neither change it nor say anything about it, because they don't own it. They can only recommend to contact AT&T for further details.
Click to expand...


If Franz Kafka was alive, he'd be a Canon manual writer.
 
no idea said:
This seems to imply that it would be no problem to distribute h.264 footage that was cut and edited on a computer, even if it was originally shot on a 7D. Why would that be so? Is it that editing software comes with a h.264 license for professional use, and this license sorta "heals" the limitations of the original license?
Click to expand...
No, it's that the 7D's license ends with its original footage. If you then cut and manipulate the footage with an NLE, you'd be governed by the NLE's license. Which, if you read, will likely say the same thing as the camera's license did.



I hope you're correct with that. Some people may still remember the threat of lawsuits over having .GIFs on your website in the previous century. I would not exclude the possibility that history repeats itself, at this point.
Click to expand...
The exact same situation exists -- but MPEG-LA appears (APPEARS) to not be concerned about getting royalties from individual producers, and even if they do, it's like two cents per disc.

Remember, the same organization governs MPEG-2 licensing, under the same rules, and people have been distributing stuff in MPEG-2 for 15 years now without being hassled about it.

That is to say, they basically ducked the question and went on to say that the terms of the license are essentially valid and binding, and that they can neither change it nor say anything about it, because they don't own it. They can only recommend to contact AT&T for further details.
Click to expand...
Yep -- that's the situation. The license means what it says, but it's also impractical and nobody really cares unless you're a big-time producer/distributor.

I would wager that MPEG-LA has pursued YouTube and Vimeo and DirecTV and others that use h.264 compression for distribution, and of course if you buy blu-ray discs or get a blu-ray disc manufactured you're already paying the royalty fees inherently. But as per pursuing individual producers? Yes the potential exists. But is it a real threat? Is it something to stress out about? Seems like that's something for each producer to decide for themselves, but the history of DVD/MPEG-2 seems to imply that they're not concerned about pursuing individual producers.

To be in full compliance, you should contact MPEG-LA to ask about licensing terms if you intend to distribute h.264 content *as* h.264.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top