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 422924
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.



Member since:
2010-05-03
From the engadget article:
"...the person who sells the content are the ones who have to pay.”
So you are forced to pass *licensing fees* on to *your clients* - guess where the bill for that might land in the end if this is your video business...?!
This is *still* not ok. *H.264* is the *appropriation of a film/video maker's work* from the moment you press that record button on your H.264 camera.
And what will hold up in court: the written manual/EULA from your camera or what someone on the internet said in article that starts of with "This isn't legal advice or analysis"...?!
It's still a trap!!!
Here my "for dummies" explanation:
H.264 licensing explained: it’s like “Schwarzer Peter” (“Old Maid”)
http://indiworks.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/h-264-licensing-explained...