Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 1st May 2010 22:17 UTC
UPDATE: Engadget just wrote a reply to this article. The article says that you don't need an extra license to shoot commercial video with h.264 cameras, but I wonder why the license says otherwise, and Engadget's "quotes" of user/filmmaker indemnification by MPEG-LA are anonymous...
UPDATE 2: Engadget's editor replied to me. So according to him, the quotes are not anonymous, but organization-wide on purpose. If that's the case, I guess this concludes that. And I can take them on their word from now on.
UPDATE 3: And regarding royalties (as opposed to just licensing), one more reply by Engadget's editor.
Permalink for comment 422093
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.



Member since:
2006-04-03
I'm going to go buy a film camera, then there'll be no fees at all. /nods
Oh wait, I'd have to buy film every time.
Oh yer, then pay for the developing each time. Hmmm, lots of wastage 'cause I never use everything I film.
Nah, come to think of it I think I'll pay 500 bucks once for a digital camcorder and stick with the "Free for personal and non-commercial use" license...