Comment by bayindirh

Comment by bayindirh a day ago

31 replies

View on Hacker News

That requirement is reversed in the last five years IIRC. My Sony A7-III doesn't have that, for example. Neither modern Canons, AFAIK.

The funnier thing is, you can't use the videos out of your camera for commercial purposes, because the video codecs inside your camera doesn't come with commercial licenses out of the box.

So if you are going to use your camera for production which you'll earn money, you need to pay commercial licenses for your cameras.

Hah.

Springtime 21 hours ago

> The funnier thing is, you can't use the videos out of your camera for commercial purposes, because the video codecs inside your camera doesn't come with commercial licenses out of the box.

Do you have a link? Could only find a 2010 article[1] that appears to have been debunked by MPEG-LA themselves (per the updates in the blog post).

[1] https://www.osnews.com/story/23236/why-our-civilizations-vid...

Reply View 6 replies
  • bayindirh 21 hours ago

    Of course. Below a selection of some user manuals, with the texts copied verbatim.

    From Nikon D500 User Manual [0], page 22:

    From Nikon Z6/Z7 User Manual [1], page 236:

    Sony has a similar note for A9 [3], but can be grouped under here, which is almost the same:

    AVC Patent Portfolio License: THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE 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 WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. S EE http://www.mpegla.com

    From Canon R5 User Manual [2], page 939:

    “This product is licensed under AT&T patents for the MPEG-4 standard and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under the AT&T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video. No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-4 standard.”

    THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL USE OF A CONSUMER OR OTHER USES IN WHICH IT DOES NOT RECEIVE REMUNERATION 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 ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM

    [0]: https://download.nikonimglib.com/archive3/4qUKV00WD5Bh04RdeC...

    [1]:https://download.nikonimglib.com/archive5/8Yygr00R9Ojb058Kwq...

    [2]: https://cam.start.canon/en/C003/manual/c003.pdf

    [3]: https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1830/v1/en/contents/TP0002351...

    Reply View 5 replies
    • Springtime 20 hours ago

      Thanks. Yeah that seems to be the same AVC/h.264 'personal and non-commercial' text the 2010 article I linked centered on. MPEG-LA spoke to Engadget[1] (finally found a working link I could read) and said that a separate license for shooting commerical video isn't required and that distribution of commercial content via licensed providers (Google/Youtube, Apple, etc) is fine.

      It seems the one caveat, per the Engadget article, is directly distributing AVC video to end users (I suppose like a direct download link on a personal site) is what requires a license but that license is free to obtain.

      [1] https://www.engadget.com/2010-05-04-know-your-rights-h-264-p...

      Reply View 2 replies
      • bayindirh 20 hours ago

        I looked around VIA-LA (which acquired MPEG-LA in 2023), and I can't see any free licenses about H.264. "Request a license" gives you an e-mail address, and that's it.

        There are other license models, which is about manufacturers, publishers and TV stations, etc.

        But nowhere it says "there's a free license for these cases, just get it from here".

        This all looks like a rabbit hole for me.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • infogulch 15 hours ago

          Can't wait for AV1 to supplant these bureaucratic rent-seekers.

          Reply View 0 replies
    • LegitShady 17 hours ago

      I wonder what the commercial licenses actually cost. I know there was a big movement of shooting movies and events with canons when good video on dslrs first became a thing. I never even thought about codec licenses, because that stuff shouldn't exist. the manufacturer should buy the license so the camera can use it forever, because its just a paperweight without it, and I dont think they should be able to sell cameras with hidden text licenses like that.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • ska 15 hours ago

        This is a problem with 'prosumer' gear in general. If camera manufactures bought a transferable commercial license for everything in it, it would be too expense for consumer use, but the people licensing IP to them want a piece if you are making money with it.

        Similar to software that is free or low cost for non-commercial use only, even with the same functionality.

        The good news is typically nobody will chase you down on this unless you are making real money. The bad news is, once you are, they will.

        Reply View 0 replies
nudgeee a day ago

Hilarious. Reminds me of Pioneer CDJs as well, even on the flagship CDJ-3000 models. If you read the user manual it says:

> About using MP3 files

> This product has been licensed for nonprofit use. This product has not been licensed for commercial purposes (for profit-making use), […]. You need to acquire the corresponding licenses for such uses. For details, see […]

Best use an open audio codec instead.

Reply View 5 replies
  • Dwedit a day ago

    Nowadays, MP3 is an open audio codec. The patents have expired.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • MrDOS 20 hours ago

      The format itself is patent-unencumbered. That doesn't mean I couldn't still write a non-free decoder and license it to Pioneer for use in their CDJs. Due to organizational inertia, I suspect that's what's going on here (e.g., they licensed a decoder from Fraunhofer or another commercial implementer twenty years ago, and have been using the same one since).

      Reply View 1 reply
      • immibis 18 hours ago

        In this case, everyone at Pioneer knows their CDJs are used almost exclusively for commercial purposes, and perhaps they couldn't get away with lying about it in the fine print.

        Reply View 0 replies
  • troupo 20 hours ago

    > Best use an open audio codec instead.

    You will still need a separate license (or multiple separate licenses) for commercial purposes.

    Music licensing is unbelievably complicated

    Reply View 1 reply
    • t0mas88 19 hours ago

      That's about the music royalties, the comment above is about the CDJs ability to play MP3 encoded audio.

      Reply View 0 replies
mongol 21 hours ago

Do you need to sign an agreement to this effect before starting filming? I don't see how it can legally hold.

Reply View 8 replies
  • bayindirh 20 hours ago

    Nominally, yes. These are checked before your movie is being distributed, and you'll most probably face legal consequences if you don't pay for your licenses.

    Not getting caught for some time doesn't count either. You'll pay retroactively, with some interest, probably.

    Licensing page is at [0]. Considering the previous shenanigans they pulled against open video and audio formats in the past [1], these guys are not sleeping around. These guys call people for patent pools in a format, and license these pools as format licenses.

    [0]: https://www.via-la.com/licensing-2/avc-h-264/avc-h-264-licen...

    [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA#Criticism

    Reply View 7 replies
    • hackingonempty 20 hours ago

      If you bought a legit licensed product the doctrine of first sale means their patent rights are exhausted.[0] They can't come after you for patent infringement. Those licenses are for manufacturers making new licensed products, not users of licensed products they purchased.

      Can you show a single court case or even a press release where someone using a legit licensed product bought on the open market was sued for codec patent infringement?

      [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S....

      Reply View 5 replies
      • ComputerGuru 15 hours ago

        I believe this is why a number of products require you to manually activate a free personal license (by clicking a button and agreeing to TOS) in the settings instead of shipping with it. You are then separately licensing the tech from the software vendor and are personally liable for infringements.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • bluGill 18 hours ago

        Back in the day Kodak had to buy back all their instant cameras after losing to Polaroid. Though I'm not sure if law has changed since then (it has, but I'm not sure if in relevant ways), or just that they did that because no being able to make film made them useless and so buyback was a goodwill gesture.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • mongol 16 hours ago

          Could that not have been because they could not sell film for them anymore, rendering them useless? So it was to make customers whole?

          Edit: Missed the last part where you said the same

          Reply View 0 replies
      • bayindirh 20 hours ago

        The license doesn't come attached to the device itself, but you as a entity (e.g. movie studio, broadcaster, or solo professional). Transferring the device doesn't transfer the license.

        You license the right to use the patent pool for commercial purposes, not the device itself.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • mongol 16 hours ago

          My read of parent's link says differently.

          Reply View 0 replies
    • matt-p 19 hours ago

      Presumably there's no way of fingerprinting the footage itself as 'unlicenced' so the closest they get is asking the studio what camera serials they used to film.

      What about if you're a YouTuber, surely they don't pay?

      Reply View 0 replies
BeFlatXIII 18 hours ago

We need to normalize piracy like we're cheap Chinese knockoff manufacturers. Down with software patents.

Reply View 0 replies
[removed] 16 hours ago
[deleted]
Reply View 0 replies
amelius a day ago

That's fine, as long as I can record long movies with my iPhone.

Reply View 1 reply
  • alibarber a day ago

    But is it a phone that records movies or a movie recorder that can make phone calls?

    [I jest, but these were almost literally the questions being asked by various commissions]

    Reply View 0 replies
xyst 17 hours ago

Wipe the EXIF data on the images when you make it public and nobody will be the wiser ;)

Reply View 4 replies
  • bayindirh 15 hours ago

    I’m not sure. Like how color printers write their serial numbers and date and whatnot on every page, these devices might be watermarking every video subtly, and we might not know it.

    Reply View 3 replies
    • ComputerGuru 15 hours ago

      It’s not exactly watermarking; each encoder works in a different way and it’s readily possible to determine (for one versed in such matters) which encoder was used to generate a video by inspecting the structure of the raw (eg h264) bitstream. This might not work reliably enough for simpler codecs like JPEG but for something as complicated as modern video codec where there are a million ways to generate a compatible payload it is as unique as a fingerprint.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • bayindirh 14 hours ago

        That’s true, but I thought of embedding a serial number and a date into the video, periodically, for example, which can be quantized as noise, but not very visible unless you filter the frame a very specific way, or pass through a tool.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • ComputerGuru 12 hours ago

          It’s fairly useless since raw footage isn’t typically distributed; it would be re-encoded first which would definitely destroy that watermark. So it would be a scandal that doesn’t necessarily accomplish much.

          Reply View 0 replies