MicrostockGroup

Another thing that make me think Nikon is focusing only on amateur products. It seem like it would be prohibited to resell a video made with the D7000. Maybe I misunderstand but it look like it.

The D300s don't have this AVC patent portfolio. I hope it don't become a standard

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/11/09/nikon-d7000-video-only-for-personal-and-non-commercial-use.aspx

Something related by Apple

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/

I don't know, that's why I ask. Actually the question is, can you buy a D7000 and make money with the videos on microstock websites

 ... and there I was trying to decide between the Canon 550D and the Red One.

Indeed. What sort of BS clause is that?
Unenforceable I would guess.

Does it mean that producing any MPEG video, also animations, etc, is not allowed for commercial purposes?

This really is one where it is best to go to Google for the various opinions and counter opinions - nobody is quite sure where this is going to end up.

Here is a CNET article about h.264.

h.264 especially is potentially affected by all sorts of potential licensing liabilities - but these are for the moment being ignored. The issue is further complicated by the fact that many of the companies producing equipment and software which use h.264 also have stakes in its ownership - and further complicated by the fact that many of them also hold patents which may or may not be connected to issues around it. And it is even further complicated by the fact that software patents may not even be enforceable or legal in some countries (eg the EU) but there have been no definite rulings.

What this means is that at some point in the future there is the possibility that there may be license fees.

EDITED: What SL said is right - and this issue even affects many high end broadcast cameras.

Chances are it will get sorted out some time before the patents expire. Similar issues have affected software in the past. Even JPEG was under doubt for a while. It might all end in a truce. But it is one of the reasons why it is unlikely that h.264 will be adopted for stock anytime soon IMO.

  You're right, so sadly Istock will not get stuck with a big bill. The article in engadget made mention of going after the end sellers, but only obviously for those selling in the h.264 format.

it is kind of crap..a failed business model

I think the restriction applies only to this encoding, selling semi-pro cameras with "no commercial use allowed" is just crap. Its like selling Ferrari with "no speeding over 80mph allowed".

If you encode video into another format and strip all info, who could tell it was made with D7000?

Any camera company and/or encoding patent holder that enforces any type of restriction on shooting video with a camera will incur the wrath of Hollywood who is using these cameras in commercial productions on a daily basis.

If Nikon actually did try to enforce it, don't you think that the backlash would be so huge as to convert the entire industry to Canon or another brand?  If the H.264 patent holders enforced the language in their license, don't you think that H.264 would stop being the standard for video within a short period of time and they'd lose the millions they make on licensing fees now?

The MPEG-LA group has already put out a press release stating that they have NO (none, zero, nada) intention of enforcing that clause in their license.  All of the major players who really matter to them have purchased licenses for H.264 and that's all they care about.

This is just another of those rumors someone started to stir up trouble where non exists.  People like to see the "boogie man" who is "out to get them" behind every camera and don't actually think about the "problem" from an industry perspective.

If you really want a noodle-buster, technically speaking the patent on MPEG2 requires everyone who buys a DVD is required to pay a license fee EVERY SINGLE TIME the DVD is viewed. Do you really believe that will ever be enforced?

Also, the courts see patent law much the same as they see copyright law...  If a patent holder does not enforce every infraction of their license, the clause governing that infraction is weakened to the point of being unenforceable.  If Nikon or the MPEG-LA do not go after every single camera owner, they weaken the clause that governs that part of their license.  Any good lawyer can go into court and say "That part of the clause is invalid because Nikon chose to sue John while allowing Goerge Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and thousands of big name hollywood directors to shoot movies and television shows with the same camera as John."

It wouldn't be for them to enforce it. The issue is more real than you are suggesting. It has to be one of the reasons why h.264 is still being treated with caution.


I don't think that it true. I am prepared to be wrong but my understanding is that the end user (viewer) will have already paid via the cost of the the playback device which will already have been subject to a license fee - ditto the disc itself. Unless you are watching a pirated DVD on a grey market device or using software or a device on which a fee has not been paid for whatever reason.