[I]"Probably better to forget about converting H.264 / AVC free programs as MPEG Streamclip. Free programs do not have a license."[/I]

WHY?

If the patent holders are going to be concerned they will send a Cease And Desist letter to the entity supplying the software. Most of the patents are due to expire shortly. The patent holders have had decades to enforce their patents and have very rarely done so. As I said previously over half the DVD players ever manufactured were in breach of these patents and the patent holders couldn't be bothered to do anything. If they don't care about the huge businesses in China and the retail stores all over the world why do you think they'd come after any of us here?

[I]"MPEG.LA simply do not want to say clearly."[/I]

MPEGLA are NOT in a position to say too clearly because they are not the patent holders. Companies such as Microsoft and Alcatel are.

Stop even thinking about all of this until such time as you receive a Cease And Desist notice. No one here has, no one in the industry has.

Bob.

FotoVideo, while I admire your desire to remain within the law, no one seems to know what the law even says. You're overthinking this, just make some video.

John Cline

Do Not I like to break the law and licensing. I have a conscience :-)

The law is ambiguous and it isn't enforced, even if you wanted to adhere to the letter of the law, there is no practical way to do so. I, too, have a conscience, but since the licensing authority doesn't even seem to care, why should I?

Hello,

Thank you for the quick reply. Contacted with various big companies stock footage. They said it me that the authors are exempt MPEG.LA pay a license must have a licensed program, for example, Sony Vegas Pro 13 and convert H.264/AVC (DSLR) is a QuickTime Photo Jpg so recommend.

The user who buys a party stock footage right into my film (Royalty Free) is an end user is required to pay a royalty which is the last in the chain (the client) if you want to encode the video in the H.264/AVC codec or another.

Are they right?

Here it is also written:

http://www.cnet.com/news/is-h-264-a-legal-minefield-for-video-pros/

("Per Section 3.1.2 of the AVC License (Title-by-Title AVC Video), the royalty for each title greater than 12 minutes in length is 2.0 percent of the Remuneration paid to the Licensee or $ 0.02 per title, whichever is lower. In other words, the royalty would not Exceed $ 0.02 per disc for the videographer, "said MPEG LA Spokesman Tom O'Reilly.)

That I understand movies single H.264/AVC less than 12 minutes Shall be exempt from royalties.

Reply by MPEG.LA

It’s good to hear from you again.

Your understanding is correct that the party selling the final AVC Video directly to End Users (for example, Title-by-Title AVC Video) is responsible for being licensed and paying the applicable royalties associated with the AVC Video they distribute. As you correctly noted, AVC Titles that are 12 minutes or less in duration would not be subject to royalties under the AVC License.

If you need anything else, just let me know.

The good news is that short films (at least 12 minutes) are exempt from royalties.

Please users with a simple translation into English.

"Your understanding is correct that the party selling the final AVC Video directly to End Users (for example, Title-by-Title AVC Video) is responsible for being licensed and paying the applicable royalties associated with the AVC Video they distribute"

>> I paid for the program from Which the output files with codecs are to pay a license for MPEG.LA

No. You. Did. Not. You. Do. Not. Have. To. Pay. A. Licence.

What is your native language, perhaps someone can answer in your native language.

>> Titles that are 12 minutes or less in duration would not be subject to royalties under the AVC License.

You. Do. Not. Have. To. Pay. A. Licence.

The only people who need to pay a license are the ones who include the codec in software that they sell. It is SONY who pays the license, not you.

[I]The only people who need to pay a license are the ones who include the codec in software that they sell.[/I]

Not always true. If you look at the license notice from the NX5U I posted earlier, you will see that even though Sony paid for the codec in the camera, it's use outside the camera is limited. A total mess if you ask me. XAVC is made by Sony and seems to be an answer to the previous mess, covering the license inside the camera and outside.

XAVC is made by Sony and seems to be an answer to the previous mess, covering the license inside the camera and outside.

I wonder. XAVC is not a unique codec. It is simply AVC with certain encoding features/options and bit rates and containers chosen. I would presume XAVC is governed by AVC/H.264 rules.

[I]"Not always true. If you look at the license notice from the NX5U I posted earlier, you will see that even though Sony paid for the codec in the camera, it's use outside the camera is limited."[/I]

Yes, it's use outside the camera is limited. That means YOUR use of the LICENCE is limited. It has nothing to do with your use of the footage from the camera outside the camera.

[I]" XAVC is made by Sony and seems to be an answer to the previous mess"[/I]

Solves nothing, probably makes it worse.
"made by" is irrelevant when it comes to patents. Sony's XAVC codec is H.264. Any ideas used in H.264 covered by a patent will also be covered under Sony's XAVC.

Multiple uses are made of the Direct Cosine Transform in video encoding. There's a considerable number of patents that cover every which way DCT can be implemented and optimised.

https://patents.justia.com/patents-by-us-classification/708/402

Bob.