Over in the DWF Pro Forums (which you can test for free for thirty days if you’re not a member), MikeD posted a link to an interesting article, that basically states that if you shoot fusion for your client, you are breaking the license agreement and, by extension, the law.
The article points out that the license for the 7D, the 5D Mk II, the 1D Mk IV, the Flip, and any other camera that encodes using the H264 Codec states that footage is for personal and non-commercial use. ”
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.” In this case “non-commercial means you’re not making any money. “For any other purpose,” the article continues, “you must get a license from MPEG-LA and pay them royalties for each copy sold.”
(5D Mark II mpeg License)
However, that might not be as dire as it first sounds. CNET, in their article on the topic, quote MPEG-LA spokesman Tom O’Reilly: “Per Section 3.1.2 of the AVC License (Title-by-Title AVC Video), the royalty for each title greater than 12 minutes in length is 2.0 percent of the remuneration paid to the Licensee or $0.02 per title, whichever is lower. In other words, the royalty would not exceed $0.02 per disc for the videographer.”
So, there you go, all you fusion photographers (or at least the ones using Canon). You owe MPEG-LA $.02 for every DVD you sell.
Back Home
11 Comments at "Fusion Photographers are you Breaking the Law?"
Just another reason there should be more support for open source codecs.
This is another reason Terms and Conditions should be less than 10 pages long and easier to navigate for the consumer. I have never met anyone that actually read and understood all T&C before adding a check mark to the “Read and Understood.”
And just HOW would they TRY to collect from the growing number of users ? Not in their wildest dreams.
Interesting. They can send me a bill.
I wonder what Hanson will owe? http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/04/30/very-cool-7d-music-video-shot-using-old-nikon-ai-prime-lenses/
Just goes to show how ridiculous our IP structure is when dealing with things like codecs and web standards and such. I think orphan works rules should apply to giant corporations, who silently let their technology get adopted by the mainstream before trying to collect. If you just sit there and watch everyone use your stuff for free, then it should become de-facto free. No coming along later and trying to profit once it’s become indispensable (That means YOU, Fraunhofer – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues)
Very interesting. Thank you for bringing this to attention.
I wonder how this would play out legally. Especially in light of the license extension to 2015.
Even with the 2015 extension, there are millions in violation, using the IP commercially.
There is a legal argument called ‘Laches’. I would imagine this defense would be used in any legal case regarding violation of the license agreement.
“The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has “slept on its rights,” and that, as a result of this delay, that other party is no longer entitled to its original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim’s being barred by laches. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)
Yikes! That is a worry although as others have said there are far too many photographers to chase down. That’s my $0.02!!
Hmmm….do they take credit cards? Looks like an expensive administrative burden for a diminishing reward. Typical hilarious IP laws.
How can anyone expect their intellectual property rights to be respected when they do not respect the rights of others? I’m saddened to see pompous challenges for someone to “try” to collect on their intellectual property rights. If I used one or more of your images commercially and told you to “try” to enforce your copyright, what would you say? what if hundreds of people stole your work and said “try to do something about it?
The notion of intellectual property – the very foundation of how we earn a living – is rapidly becoming a joke and photographers should not deserve the blame, but we largely do.
@Mark: Your confusing Copyright with Software Patents. H.264 is covered by software patents, your photos are covered by Copyright. Not to mention we are talking about a situation so far removed from protecting your image rights its almost laughable. Imagine for a minute that Honda/toyota/Ford, etc, called you up today and said “hey, remember when you bought your car? Remember that agreement you signed? Well, we are going to collect on it now. You owe use .25c per mile driven. Please make the check payable to “shafted”". Now imagine the same situation, except you bought the car used on ebay, but Ford/etc says you *still* have to pay them, because the car uses technologies they have patented.
That is the reality of Software Patents.
Waaah that’s really a bad news for photographers, I mean many are selling DVD copy’s with the use of MPEG-LA high quality vids that’s really not fair, btw what how will they sue those people that get caught?
Comment Now!