MPEG2 and H264 for non-professional use only?!

I guess we should just wait and see what happens when big time filmmakers like Lucas try to make their films with DSLRs. What's more once the Scarlet comes out (when ever that might be... :P) we indies will be able to dodge that bullet completely with .R3D but still what do we export to??

Looks like the viewers are still vulnerable to a world of hurt though... poopy

good article!
 
If acquisition is using a codec the manufacturer licenses to you for any use (which includes any form of uncompressed or raw, DNG, TIFFs, and all professional video codecs), there is no problem in acquisition/editing. The problem is with cameras that do not include a professional mpeg/h264 license for acquisition.

This doesn't affect the distribution side. You pay the media/codec holder as usual. This does not happen online yet. I guess they are waiting for the online video market to become important enough so that businesses will count on it, then they will start enforcing the patents and make some serious money.
 
These same restrictions were all posted on MPEG2 as well. This really does reference the distribution and not the acquisition.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
These same restrictions were all posted on MPEG2 as well. This really does reference the distribution and not the acquisition.
Click to expand...

The camera manufacturer mentions the encoding is for personal use only (Canon and others). The editing software manufacturer mentions the decoding is for personal use only (Apple Final Cut Pro and others). So both the encoding and decoding are done with a license that does not cover professional use. Even if we distribute the final product in other codecs, haven't we already violated the two licenses by using the codecs for a professional project? The manufacturers of the camera and the editing software do not provide a license for recording and reading the content for professional use, so we are using the codecs illegally.
 
Is this a scare thread or something? LOL

Obviously, it's not going to bite anyone in the ass...
 
I see it all as a CYA for the camera manufacturers...nothing to be too concerned about.
 
Blaine said:
I see it all as a CYA for the camera manufacturers...nothing to be too concerned about.
Click to expand...

The software licenses do sound like that. As I read it, they have clauses to protect the company from playing back video that is AVC but was not produced by someone who paid the licensing. It's not something they can check before decoding so I guess MPEG-LA is very powerful.
 
Kholi said:
Is this a scare thread or something? LOL

Obviously, it's not going to bite anyone in the ass...
Click to expand...

I think we will eventually have to pay for putting all those videos online just like we do for packaged media. Everybody is using the new technology as if it is open source and the patent holders certainly encouraged it in order to spread the use of the codecs.
 
What about a small indie distributor that releases DVDs?

I would think that there would be massive backlash against any company that tried to enforce it against "the little guy."

john
 
"Pay" in what capacity? And, do you REALLY think someone's going to take out a case against hundreds of thousands of people to cease-and-desist all active display?

Furthermore, there's no way to prove where footage originated, anyway. By the time it hits the internet, it's in flash format or something worse.

If it's going to DVD or BluRay? Theatrical?

This isn't the first time this discussion has come up, anyway. It's printed in the Canon Manual...

I'd be sad if anyone bought into being scared by this.
 
Kholi said:
"Pay" in what capacity? And, do you REALLY think someone's going to take out a case against hundreds of thousands of people to cease-and-desist all active display?

Furthermore, there's no way to prove where footage originated, anyway. By the time it hits the internet, it's in flash format or something worse.

If it's going to DVD or BluRay? Theatrical?

This isn't the first time this discussion has come up, anyway. It's printed in the Canon Manual...

I'd be sad if anyone bought into being scared by this.
Click to expand...

I believe they will just focus on online providers. It's their technology and we are using it everyday. We are not paying rights for that distribution, so they will demand it from the provider. It's a drop on the ocean vs the hosting costs so that will not change anything.

I have read lots of articles on the subject so I checked the actual text:

The Canon 5dII license I just read is not very clear, but I believe it is misinterpreted by Eugenia and others. As I see it, it is saying that you can encode anything but only decode non-professional content or content that was encoded by an encoding licensee, which Canon are. So it only covers Canon from decoding illegally encoded material.

The Final Cut Studio 2 license is problematic. It could be that a laywer was anxious to cover all fronts and produce a very bad wording. If you analyse the wording it says 1) non professionals can encode non-professional video. 2) non-professionals can decode non-professional video. 3) non-professionals can decode video for non professional use 4) non-professionals can decode video that was provided by a licensed party. So, you can edit the Canon material, but not if you are a professional:) It covers Apple from decoding illegally encoded material but also for use as digital cinema playback software (the only professional decoding application I can think of).
 
Last edited:
Guys, this is a tempest in a teapot. We've already been down this path. EVERY mpeg-2 camera has all the same limitations. MPEG-2 is licensed by MPEG-LA. So every HDV camera, every XDCAM-HD, every XDCAM-EX, they all have it. Every consumer and prosumer h.264 camera, the DSLRs, the nanoflash, everything, are all subject to the same conditions and the same licensing.

In the practical world, it is a complete non-issue. The mpeg licensing is an issue for DISTRIBUTION, which we've already discussed ad nauseum. If you intend to distribute work in the h.264 codec, you *may* need a license from MPEG-LA, which would amount to two or three cents per copy.

As a practical matter, it is a non-issue. There are tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of DVD producers selling DVDs, none of which are paying royalties to MPEG-LA, and MPEG-LA doesn't really care. They care about the big studios, and that's who the licensing agreements are aimed at.

This has all been discussed before. It is a practical non-issue. Reality TV shows shooting on AVCCAM, NXCAM, and XDCAM, and professional productions using AVC-Intra, XDCAM-EX and XDCAM-HD aren't concerned about it. It just isn't gonna be a problem. It's unenforceable. Don't sweat it.

And if you really, really, really want to sweat it? Shoot DVCPRO-HD. It's the only non-MPEG-based HD codec out there on a professional video camera. No licensing, no nonsense. Hang an HPG20 off the SDI port of any camera and record straight to DVCPRO-HD.
 
This was being discussed over on Red user and I couldn't understand why this has come up again now. But I'm a little suspicious of the timing of this, with the current Apple vs Adobe debacle. If you're distributing on DVD, then you shouldn't have a problem as the licence is paid as a part of replication ( or at least should be ).
The issue here, as I see it, is when it comes to distribute the films via the internet and for portable devices. Do you go with a flash based distribution or an mpeg based one and risk having your stuff pulled if you haven't paid the license? Hmm
 
AdrianF said:
The issue here, as I see it, is when it comes to distribute the films via the internet and for portable devices. Do you go with a flash based distribution or an mpeg based one and risk having your stuff pulled if you haven't paid the license? Hmm
Click to expand...

Flash is a container isn't it?

Microsoft IE9 HTML5 will allow H264 video only.

These guys will own the online video market.
 
Flash is a container isn't it?
Click to expand...

But how will that affect online distribution and the licenses that are theoretically payable here? Would the distributor still be liable for these payments in this case?

These guys will own the online video market.
Click to expand...
Exactly, world domination, insert Dr Evil laughter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top