Author Topic: Nikon D7000 videos only for “personal and non-commercial use” ? (Read 20421 times)

vonkara · « **on:** November 13, 2010, 11:29 »

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/

bunhill · « **Reply #1 on:** November 13, 2010, 11:40 »

Does it makes much difference how the capture is encoded given that the content will likely be transcoded to an intermediate format for editing / post production and then output to whatever format is required for distribution ?

vonkara · « **Reply #2 on:** November 13, 2010, 11:52 »

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

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** November 13, 2010, 12:19 »

We already did this with the Canon a while back:
http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA
"You see, there is something very important, that the vast majority of both consumers and video professionals don't know: 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 (go on, read your manuals)."

bunhill · « **Reply #4 on:** November 13, 2010, 12:56 »

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

Snufkin · « **Reply #5 on:** November 13, 2010, 13:22 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 13, 2010, 12:19

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 (go on, read your manuals)."

Well, shouldn't this agreement then be signed at the moment of purchasing the camera?
They advertize that the cam has video capability, can I not assume that I am allowed to sell those videos just like I'm allowed to sell the photos that the camera produces?

Graffoto · « **Reply #6 on:** November 13, 2010, 13:37 »

Quote from: Tom on November 13, 2010, 13:22

Quote from: sjlocke on November 13, 2010, 12:19
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 (go on, read your manuals)."

Well, shouldn't this agreement then be signed at the moment of purchasing the camera?
They advertize that the cam has video capability, can I not assume that I am allowed to sell those videos just like I'm allowed to sell the photos that the camera produces?

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

bunhill · « **Reply #7 on:** November 13, 2010, 14:48 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 13, 2010, 12:19

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 (go on, read your manuals)."

And software. Final Cut Pro License

Quote

15. H.264/AVC Notice. To the extent that the Apple Software contains AVC encoding and/or decoding functionality, commercial use of H.264/AVC requires additional licensing and the following provision applies: THE AVC FUNCTIONALITY IN THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED HEREIN ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO") AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. INFORMATION REGARDING OTHER USES AND LICENSES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA L.L.C. SEE http://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.

madelaide · « **Reply #8 on:** November 13, 2010, 15:38 »

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

jbarber873 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 13, 2010, 17:29 »

Quote from: madelaide on November 13, 2010, 15:38

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

According to the engadget link, it's okay to do so as a small producer. Although they won't give it to you in writing, they obviously don't want to be seen as the bad guys. I would think that if they went after anyone, it would be the end seller, as in istock or Pond5. I'm sure somewhere in the fine print at Istock is something making us responsible for this ( it's the Istock way!) but since they offer a guarantee for files they sell, maybe they would be on the hook. The bottom line Madelaide is that until you become Steven Speilberg, you're off the hook.

( the fine print: I'm not a lawyer, I just think there are better things to worry about)

bunhill · « **Reply #10 on:** November 13, 2010, 17:39 »

Quote from: madelaide on November 13, 2010, 15:38

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.

bunhill · « **Reply #11 on:** November 13, 2010, 17:43 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on November 13, 2010, 17:29

I would think that if they went after anyone, it would be the end seller, as in istock

iStockphoto uses Motion JPEG for the encoding not h.264.

So unless this issue also really affects capture it would not be an issue. And if it affects capture then it affects the entire industry, all of TV and nearly all world govts and companies, directly or indirectly. So capture probably is not in issue. I would guess.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 13, 2010, 18:42 »

Quote from: bunhill on November 13, 2010, 17:43

Quote from: jbarber873 on November 13, 2010, 17:29
I would think that if they went after anyone, it would be the end seller, as in istock

iStockphoto uses Motion JPEG for the encoding not h.264.

So unless this issue also really affects capture it would not be an issue. And if it affects capture then it affects the entire industry, all of TV and nearly all world govts and companies, directly or indirectly. So capture probably is not in issue. I would guess.

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #13 on:** November 14, 2010, 11:37 »

So what is definitely legal to sell? AVI and WMV? MPEG depends on the encoding? I'm confused...

mtkang · « **Reply #14 on:** November 14, 2010, 12:03 »

it is kind of crap..a failed business model

bunhill · « **Reply #15 on:** November 14, 2010, 12:03 »

Quote from: madelaide on November 14, 2010, 11:37

So what is definitely legal to sell? AVI and WMV? MPEG depends on the encoding? I'm confused...

AVI (like Quicktime) is a container format rather than an encoding / compression algorithm. The Wikpedia page for AVI is useful.

Quote

An AVI file may carry audio/visual data inside the chunks in virtually any compression scheme, including Full Frame (Uncompressed), Intel Real Time (Indeo), Cinepak, Motion JPEG, Editable MPEG, VDOWave

According to the Library Of Congress site Motion JPEG =

Quote

Licensing and patent claims -- Apparently none, except as indicated for JPEG.

That site is a good place for looking up encoding methods.

basti · « **Reply #16 on:** November 15, 2010, 03:01 »

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?

bunhill · « **Reply #17 on:** November 15, 2010, 03:25 »

Not just 'semi pro' cameras. Sony PDW-700 XDCAM HD422 is "a US$30,000 broadcast HD camera"

Quote

MPEG-4 VISUAL PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE MPEG-4 VISUAL PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER FOR

(i) ENCODING VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MPEG-4 VISUAL STANDARD (“MPEG-4 VIDEO”)
AND/OR
(ii) DECODING MPEG-4 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED BY MPEG LA TO PROVIDE MPEG-4 VIDEO

NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INCLUDING THAT RELATING TO PROMOTIONAL, INTERNAL AND COMMERCIAL USES AND LICENSING MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, LLC

MPEG LA is offering licenses for (i) manufacturing/sales of any storage media storing MPEG-4 Visual video information (ii) distribution/broadcasting of MPEG-4 Visual video information in any manner (such as online video distribution service, internet broadcasting, TV broadcasting). Other usage of this product may be required to obtain a license from MPEGLA

Via: http://dylanreeve.com/videotv/2010/the-mpeg-and-h-264-problem.html

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #18 on:** November 15, 2010, 09:57 »

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."

click_click · « **Reply #19 on:** November 15, 2010, 10:28 »

Quote from: basti on November 15, 2010, 03:01

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

Exactly. Just upload the stuff in Photo-JPG (as it is progressive anyways).

bunhill · « **Reply #20 on:** November 15, 2010, 10:39 »

Quote from: dnavarrojr on November 15, 2010, 09:57

If Nikon actually did try to enforce it ..

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.

Quote from: dnavarrojr on November 15, 2010, 09:57

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.

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Nikon D7000 videos only for “personal and non-commercial use” ? (Read 20421 times)

vonkara

bunhill

vonkara

Sean Locke Photography

bunhill

Snufkin

Graffoto

bunhill

madelaide

jbarber873

bunhill

bunhill

jbarber873

madelaide

mtkang

bunhill

basti

bunhill

dnavarrojr

click_click

bunhill

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors