Fine Print for H.264
Yesterday OSNews ran an article about the fine print in camera manuals that restrict creating video to personal use only:
You see, there is something very important, that the vast majority of both consumers and video professionals don’t know: ALL modern video cameras and camcorders that shoot in h.264 or mpeg2, come with a license agreement that says that you can only use that camera to shoot video for “personal use and non-commercial” purposes (go on, read your manuals). I was first made aware of such a restriction when someone mentioned that in a forum, about the Canon 7D dSLR. I thought it didn’t apply to me, since I had bought the double-the-price, professional (or at least prosumer), Canon 5D Mark II. But looking at its license agreement last night (page 241), I found out that even my $3000 camera comes with such a basic license. So, I downloaded the manual for the Canon 1D Mark IV, a camera that costs $5000, and where Canon consistently used the word “professional” and “video” on the same sentence on their press release for that camera. Nope! Same restriction: you can only use your professional video dSLR camera (professional, according to Canon’s press release), for non-professional reasons. And going even further, I found that even their truly professional video camcorder, the $8000 Canon XL-H1A that uses mpeg2, also comes with a similar restriction. You can only use your professional camera for non-commercial purposes. For any other purpose, you must get a license from MPEG-LA and pay them royalties for each copy sold. I personally find this utterly unacceptable.
Today, Engadget has their legal writer assure everyone that the sky is not falling:
Ouch. So people are mad because they have to pay to make and distribute videos for commercial use? Yes, but it’s not as bad as it seems. 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.
The part that still doesn’t make me fell warm and fuzzy about shooting commercial content:
Yes, 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, but hey — if you’re doing that you’re running an actual business and you need to go talk to a real lawyer
I’m still not happy about this legalese revelation regarding what I can and can’t do with gear that I purchased to create content for sale or otherwise. If I purchase a device to create content, I don’t expect their to be strings or fees attached and I find this a disturbing business model. I would prefer that the companies selling me gear make better deals on our behalf – even if it means paying a little more for the gear. As consumers we are constantly bombarded with insidious fine print that we are forced to accept if we want to stay current and competitive in this information age. I shouldn’t have to consult my lawyer for every technology purchase I make.
