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: … Continue Reading

Clause 43 defeated, but the Digital Economy Bill goes through

In its final hours before being dissolved for a General Election, the British Parliament passed the controversial Digital Economy Bill – but not Clause 43, which dealt with “orphan works” and was the subject of much anguish among the UK photographic community.

In draft, Clause 43 had proposed that orphan works could be used by anyone, for any purpose.

It was designed to make it easier for old images in libraries and museums to be re-used for exhibitions and education. That’s a fine aim, but the wording of the Clause was so vague, it gave photographers genuine fears that their work could be abused.

… Continue Reading

Photographer fights in court to protect rights

Meet Carlos Miller.

Mr Miller is a Miami-based multimedia journalist who has been caught in a dispute with the city’s police for almost two years now.

On February 20th 2007, he took a photo of five police officers. He was standing on a public road at the time. An altercation followed, and Mr Miller ended up on the ground, under arrest, and threatened with a taser.

… Continue Reading

Looming UK copyright law might burn a hole through copyright

Photographers in the UK are being urged to write to their local MP to protest against measures in the imminent Digital Economy Bill which could, campaigners say, effectively remove copyright on millions of photos posted on the internet.

… Continue Reading

London photography rights protest a great success

The I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist event that took place in London a couple of weeks ago was a great success, judging by the images and videos of it that have been posted online since.

Sadly the official web site hasn’t been updated, so we thought we’d give you a flavor of what took place, by way of a follow-up to the interview with co-organiser Jeff Moore that we posted here shortly before the big day.

… Continue Reading

Standing up for photographers’ rights

A piece of legislation responsible for many of the recent confrontations between police and photographers in the UK has just been declared unlawful by the Court of Human Rights. But it is unlikely to be amended any time soon.

… Continue Reading