MPEG2 and H264 for non-professional use only?!

[JMG100]

This is much ado about nothing. Yes, the legal language is scary, but for small producers, it's nothing to worry about.

 

[Barry_Green]

So I have to cut the product to be able to sell it legally?

No. You just have to distribute it in some format other than h.264, because you are not granted a license to distribute footage in the h.264 format.

How much cutting do I have to do?

None. Just render it out in VP8, or Ogg Theora, or DVCPRO-HD, or MJPG, or any other codec OTHER than MPEG-2 or MPEG-4.

The only restriction is on distributing footage in the h.264 format. MPEG-LA administers patents on h.264, and if you use h.264, you're supposed to get a license (not that they care for the little guys).

(and, of course, these same restrictions apply to MPEG-2, let's not forget!)

but what if I happen to be just shooting and handing the footage to the client to cut themselves?

No problem. You're not "distributing" the footage.

What if I'm selling stock footage?

If it's under 12 minutes per clip, you have no problem, no royalties due. So for stock footage, you have NOTHING to worry about.

If it's over 12 minutes per clip, you probably shouldn't sell it in h.264 format. So transcode it to something else and you have no problem.

Of course, you won't really have a problem even if you distribute it in the original format, because according to the engadget article where they spoke directly to MPEG-LA, MPEG-LA doesn't really care. They're concerned with movie distribution companies who are selling hundreds of millions and billions of dollars worth of titles.

It's damn principle of the thing, you know?

Then don't use a camera that records to MPEG-2 or h.264. The HPX170, for example. Actually any P2HD camera would qualify, because they all have the ability to use DVCPRO-HD, which has no encumbrances. Of course, if you use AVC-Intra, you're back in the same h.264 boat.

The addendum to that article was that Theora actually infringes on the h.264 patent anyway.

No, the addendum was that MPEG-LA is accusing Theora of infringing on their patents. Accusations are not proof, and the courts will have to settle that one.

H.264 is royalty free (except for the big guys) until 2016.

Only for online distribution. For disc-based distribution royalties are due. But they don't really care, at least as far as MPEG-2 goes. You pay through the nose for licensing and disc manufacturing for h.264 blu-ray discs though.

What happens then?

Well, look at MPEG-2 for your answers. MPEG-2 is governed under the same licensing terms, and the same agency administers the patents. How has that stopped you? All of DVD distribution is MPEG-2. All of broadcast television is MPEG-2. All of HDV and XDCAM-EX and XDCAM-HD is MPEG-2.

Fact is, MPEG-LA doesn't care about the little guy. Any royalties they are worried about collecting, they've collected on the blank disc from the blank disc manufacturers.

And 2016 is a long way off in the internet age. Don't be surprised if h.264 itself is obsolete and replaced with a totally free/open-source codec in the space of four years.

 

[Justin Kuhn]

Anything else I got to reply with would be uselessly rhetorical, so...Oh snap.

 

[Nathyn]

I think this is all a lot of noise. Cameras are made to make movies. Let's make them. They'll have a lot of people to sue. LOL.

-Nate