Thanks for clarifying Warren! Tiemo
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] Im Auftrag von Warren Samples via use-livecode Gesendet: Montag, 24. Juli 2017 18:24 An: Tiemo Hollmann TB via use-livecode <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> Cc: Warren Samples <war...@warrensweb.us> Betreff: Re: AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives On 07/24/2017 02:54 AM, Tiemo Hollmann TB via use-livecode wrote: > Last year I asked Sorenson media if I have to pay license fees, using the > h.264 codec and got the following answer from Sorenson: > "No, you do not need to pay any license fees to use any codecs included in > Squeeze. Sorenson Media pays any license fees necessary for all the codecs > contained in Squeeze. Once you have encoded your video with a licensed > product, like Squeeze, you will never need to pay any licensing fees again." > I assume that’s the same using other compressing tools Tiemo There is so much confusion regarding licenses! Ironically one of the main purposes of the MPEG-LA group is to simplify licensing for users and distributors by centralizing the process. From suspect amateur legal advice from internet forum "experts", opaque and/or seemingly non-complimentary statements from software distributors and MPEG-LA itself, and the lack of comprehensive definitive information, it's really hard for someone interested in getting it "right" to know what to do without hiring expensive attorneys. Regarding the ENCODER distributed with device OSs and software, including professional software, whose EULAs state that use of the encoder has only been licensed for personal and non-commercial use; it seems from what the MPEG-LA says that this does not mean there is another level of license required to use the software in professional production. It points to the possible necessity of royalty payments for finished content distribution. Please see: <https://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/> and: <http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-some-questions-about-avch-264-licensing/> (This is a very long back and forth, you have to read all of it to gather all the information.) The distribution of encoded content is completely separate from the encoder issue. Content distributors might be wise to request a license even if their usage does not trigger royalty payments. http://www.mpegla.com/main/default.aspx Sorenson has not paid, nor could it begin to calculate how to pay any royalties due on content distributed by its own users, but it is clear you don't have to pay any additional fee simply to use Squeeze to produce content for paid distribution. (According to the MPEG-LA licensing associate.) You could be required to pay to distribute that content depending on your circumstances. When distributing content via YouTube for exaqmple, MPEG-LA view YouTube as the distributor and liable for any licensing fees, not the content creator. (Again, according to the MPEG-LA licensing associate.) I hope this was helpful but I make no promises :) Warren _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
