Is H.264 a legal minefield for video pros?
news.cnet.com
news.cnet.com
"Personal and non-commercial activity" sounds ominous for professionals.
But it turns out it's not, exactly.
But it goes on to explain, case by case, how essentially any commercial use of the video produced from these products is in fact not covered by the Final Cut Pro or Adobe Premiere h.264 licenses. It seems the only kinds of professionals who are safe are those who are part of a supply chain where someone further on the supply chain is responsible for procuring the h.264 license, like employees of a movie studio where the studio itself has a license."For (b) (1) where an end user pays directly for video services on a title-by-title basis (e.g., where viewer determines titles to be viewed or number of viewable titles are otherwise limited), royalties for video greater than 12 minutes (there is no royalty for a title 12 minutes or less) ..."
This probably explains the maximal duration of most videos on youtube.
How long is a standard US half hour TV show minus adverts and credits? Or did someone do a survey of adult sites to see how long the clips were?
Here's the EULA for our PRO camera :
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=584693&l=d37e6ecc2...
That's right, a MPEG2 camera that can't be used for anything but home movies without paying MPEG-LA more money.
And when you pay them for using your own camera, you find that you have to pay again to import MPEG2 into Final Cut
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=584692&l=a8a46fa56...
And according to MPEG-LA encoders & distributors must pay, so by using your camera you are exposing the venus you show it in to royaslty payments to MPEG-LA.
Want to know how much that'll cost :
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsS...
It's still cheaper than doing a Blu-Ray