@Musicvid - What you say makes absolute sense to me and I defer to your greater knowledge and experience regarding the author's perspectives.

What triggered me even considering the issue was this FAQ response for a small fx prog I'm considering perhaps getting called Amberlight 2 be Escape Motions. See link under screenshot for the full text answer to the question of:

"Can the video output from Amberlight 2 be used commercially?"

The gist of the response is this part:

"No software that uses the H.264 / H.265 codec allows you to export video for commercial purposes. To use video with these codecs for commercial purposes, every user needs to get a license from http://www.mpegla.com."

Note that the company is based in Slovakia so maybe laws and protocols may differ in Europe or the EU, or the statement may simply be inaccurate, full stop. Sure seems to be the latter to me.

Can the video output from Amberlight 2 be used commercially?

The gist of the response is this part:

"No software that uses the H.264 / H.265 codec allows you to export video for commercial purposes. To use video with these codecs for commercial purposes, every user needs to get a license from http://www.mpegla.com."

Yep, that one's made the round trip a couple of times since .h264 hit the streets. And OMG you should have heard the uproar years earlier when Tsunami put an MPEG-2 software encoder in Beta 12 of TMPGENC.

Many years back, Sony Creative Software issued an official response on the old forum that said essentially, of course we have the right to use it commercially; every software owner already owns the limited license. "Limited" has a very different legal definition than most people read. Again, there would be tens of thousands of fugitive criminals if this were not the case. MPEG-LA isn't out to prosecute anyone individually, and they've never gone after VideoLan, the x264 creators, to my knowledge.

One of my music colleagues was deeply involved in the recording industry lawsuits that shut down the big pirate music sites a couple of decades ago. When I asked him about our own productions, which were shot in MPEG-2 and AVCHD, he just laughed and paid me for the discs.

What these bloggers do is try to interpret EULAs in the context of informal language, and then they get lots of unearned attention by saying, "See here what it says, I told you so." What they really say is, "Someone has to buy the license." Utter nonsense.

@Musicvid - Point taken. So... would it be appropriate for me to contact Escape Motions about said statement to (politely) point out that their FAQ response is... utter nonsense? For it is misleading as per everything you have said.

I wouldn't; a) it wouldn't do any good, b) we're not lawyers, and c), they are in another country. I have learned that bearing silent witness is a far more powerful role than that of a victim, an investigator, or a Jonah. And better for the spirit.

TBQH, the disclaimer you linked to sounds more like a confession than a caution to me.

(oh, and: obligatory I'm not a lawyer disclaimer)

Got it.

It's complicated. But generally content creators needn't worry about licensing. Distributors and software developers should.

Distributors should pay for codec licensing if they're distributing paid-for (i.e. user must pay to view) content. So this means Netflix will pay to use H264, as you must have a paid subscription to watch their content. But YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Twitch, etc. won't, because all content there is free (being supported by ads is fine.)

@DrinkyBird would you happen to know anything specific about why GPU makers are so reluctant to add 422 10bit HEVC decode, and 422/420 10bit AVC decode?

Intel has shown it can be done for 422 10bit HEVC

@DrinkyBird would you happen to know anything specific about why GPU makers are so reluctant to add 422 10bit HEVC decode, and 422/420 10bit AVC decode?

Intel has shown it can be done for 422 10bit HEVC

I've no idea to be honest, but I very much doubt it's licensing related, as licenses cover the entire HEVC spec.

As I understand it, any Main 4:4:4 10/12 decoder should support Main 4:2:2 10, but it appears NVIDIA supports 4:4:4 but not 4:2:2. (I can't find much information on what specific profiles AMD supports) It eludes me as to why. Perhaps they decided it was too niche a format and decided to focus efforts elsewhere (e.g. AV1, which would have a much wider reach)? I can only guess really.

I wouldn't; a) it wouldn't do any good, b) we're not lawyers, and c), they are in another country. I have learned that bearing silent witness is a far more powerful role than that of a victim, an investigator, or a Jonah. And better for the spirit.

TBQH, the disclaimer you linked to sounds more like a confession than a caution to me.

Wise words for I've had to throttle that temptation this morning for my thoughts were "But they could be scaring off potential new customers with their statement, maybe if they amended it somehow....."

Good intention perhaps, but road to hell, etc. :)

You pay a licensing fee as part of your software purchase price for registered codecs, including .h264. This includes Vegas and FCP, which have different EULAs.

That said the author is well known in IT circles for his hyperbole, sensationalist theories, and pseudo-legal sh*t-stirring. His article cites no instances of Apple or MPEG-LA actually suing anyone, so that alone pegs it as a bag of hot air. No, I don't like the guy.

I agree. The article (dated 2010!) doesn't even link to, or recite in its entirety, the 'blog' it purports to discuss. And by hyping the blog-author as a then Harvard Phd candidate, misleads by failing to mention that he was studying software engineering (programming) with no legal background or expertise in the subject beyond implementation. But the blog writer might have been involved in implementing the decision of Google, his current employer, to adopt royalty-free VP9 and Opus codecs and perhaps, making preparations for its move towards similarly adopting AV1. Apparently the article writer didn't pick up on that bit of prescience, which might have been further beyond his ability to foresee or understand than the legal issues admitted to. So much has changed since 2010 and none of the contract language recited in that article is probably accurate today.

"The article (dated 2010!)"

@Howard-Vigorita - My bad for not noticing that. That's like Bronze age data. I saw a similar article today at ZDNet dated 2011 and skipped it due to outdatedness. And I have to stop obsessing about this whole issue. I can (maybe) worry about it once something I create reaches multiple thousands of purchases. Most unlikely.

@DrinkyBird would you happen to know anything specific about why GPU makers are so reluctant to add 422 10bit HEVC decode, and 422/420 10bit AVC decode?

Intel has shown it can be done for 422 10bit HEVC

I've no idea to be honest, but I very much doubt it's licensing related, as licenses cover the entire HEVC spec.

As I understand it, any Main 4:4:4 10/12 decoder should support Main 4:2:2 10, but it appears NVIDIA supports 4:4:4 but not 4:2:2. (I can't find much information on what specific profiles AMD supports) It eludes me as to why. Perhaps they decided it was too niche a format and decided to focus efforts elsewhere (e.g. AV1, which would have a much wider reach)? I can only guess really.

@DrinkyBird I figured it was a licensing issue, and they reason they don't implement it , isn't over a patent fee, it's about being sued for millions some time down the track. Unlike software how do you remove a HEVC decoder from a piece of hardware. But this is speculation , I have tried googling this before, but google seems to have turned into a dumpster fire lately, so many sites are full of virus's, and auto generated ChatGPT bot babble unrelated to my search to get clicks

But once again, how does Intel do this, not scared to get sued?, or paid a huge patent fee that the other GPU makers aren't willing to absorb? I think there's more to it but after years of wondering I still don't know the real answer

Thanks for the explanation Drinkybird about what would trigger license fees. That makes sense.

Regarding hardware support for AVC and HEVC, it would make sense not to support 10-bit AVC variants as it's out of spec and they've moved on to competing over HEVC and newer technologies. Why 10-bit 4:4:4 is supported for HEVC and not 4:2:2 is a mystery though. Doubt it's about patents or licensing. Intel's got a long and deep history for video decoding and may have some technological advantage there.

@RogerS Maybe not wanting to cut into professional markets where they can charge what they like. The Matrox cards have been around forever, and look at their specs, so average they may not be suitable for 4K editing

https://www.matrox.com/en/video/products/broadcast-media/h264-codec-cards/m264

Distributors should pay for codec licensing if they're distributing paid-for (i.e. user must pay to view) content. So this means Netflix will pay to use H264, as you must have a paid subscription to watch their content. But YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Twitch, etc. won't, because all content there is free (being supported by ads is fine.)

Don't think that's right. Intellectual property owners enjoy an exclusive monopoly over the use and enjoyment of their compositions and inventions, subject only to statutory limitations. Exploiters for profit are generally made to pay royalties based on the money they collect, regardless of whether it comes from end users or advertisers. In the case of patent rights pooled by the MEPEG organization, I imagine they cut their own deals with larger entities just like BMI does for pooled performance rights. But, unlike copyright associations, I've never heard of them going after end users.

OT and I feel like a newbie dunce asking this:

How does one unfollow a thread (not all threads i.e. in profile Preferences) - in case this one since the discussion has developed beyond my initial OP and seems to be of more use to others - and is now a bit over-my-head?

Thanks.

@Soniclight-2.0 do you have "followed" in blue in your "initial OP"? Click that to see it turn to "follow". Works for me.