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 422482
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.



Member since:
2006-07-26
You mention that you have the 5DmkII.
I went for the 7D as my first dSLR.
Anyway, I am curious if you are going to actually do anything different with your camera now?
Are you going to capture in motion jpeg?
You also must be wondering, if you were to make money off your videos or even get into it professionally... how would anyone know the intermediate formats your video was stored in? I guess the problem is that MPEG-LA can with over 99% certainty say if it is HD video it was at some point stored in a format infringing our patents. Without a subpoena they wouldn't be able to tell that it was.