Commercial Use

[firstbase]

Sorry for the noob question...can I use a program such as Cyberlink PowerDirector or Sony Vegas for commercial purposes? Make movies to sell?

Thanks in advance...!

[poisondeathray]

There are royalty fees for the audio & video formats when used for commercial purposes , even open source ones like xvid

e.g. if you use MPEG-2 /DVD check here http://www.mpegla.com/m2/

There might be other fees related to the software as well, you should contact Sony or Cyberlink to be safe

There is a related discussion here with more info
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=144211

[minidv2dvd]

if you own the source material and the programs the output is yours. that is what the encoders are for.

[AlanHK]

There are royalty fees for the audio & video formats when used for commercial purposes , even open source ones like xvid

No, only for software that uses that code to create or perhaps play it. Not for the media files in that format.

Do you have to get Microsoft's permission to distribute a file in Word DOC format?

[firstbase]

Thanks for the replies. How about "Muvee Autoproducer" or "Muvee Reveal"? These are the slide show/movie makers that supply backgrounds, transitionsetc. Are these the same or only for consumer rather than professional use? It the output the property of the user on this type of program as well? Again, sorry to be a noob...!

[MOVIEGEEK]

Thanks for the replies. How about "Muvee Autoproducer" or "Muvee Reveal"? These are the slide show/movie makers that supply backgrounds, transitionsetc. Are these the same or only for consumer rather than professional use? It the output the property of the user on this type of program as well? Again, sorry to be a noob...!

Those are also ok for commercial use as long as you pay for the program,the effects are royalty-free*.
Anything you author is automatically copyrighted as long as the source doesn't belong to someone else:
If you use a Brother typewriter to write a book then you are the author.
If you use Word to write a song then you are the author.
If you use your own camera to film/photograph then you are the author.
If you use a copyrighted film,photo,text or music then you have to get permission.
If you author something for an employer then they probably own it.

*Royalty-free means you only pay once and the owner doesn't get residuals.

[Video Head]

There are royalty fees for the audio & video formats when used for commercial purposes , even open source ones like xvid

No, only for software that uses that code to create or perhaps play it. Not for the media files in that format.

Do you have to get Microsoft's permission to distribute a file in Word DOC format?

Shhhh! Balmer might be listening!

[disturbed1]

If you create a DVD and sale it, you have to pay a fee for using MPEG2.

Dear Mr. Richie,

Thank you for your inquiry below and you interest in MPEG LA. We
appreciate hearing from you and will be glad to assist you.

As you apparently are aware, our MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License
provides coverage under patents that are essential for use of the MPEG-2
Video and Systems Standard. Therefore, products that include MPEG-2
functionality need to be licensed under these essential patents and will
benefit from coverage under our MPEG-2 License.

More specifically, if you create discs containing MPEG-2 video content
(e.g., CD, DVD discs containing MPEG-2 video) for anything other than
your own home or personal use, then you would benefit from the coverage
of our MPEG-2 License. Specifically, if you create DVD video discs
containing MPEG-2 video, then Section 2.4 of the License for MPEG-2
Packaged Medium would provide you with coverage and you would be
responsible for applicable royalties.

The current royalty is $0.03 per Video Event (or Movie). "MPEG-2 Video
Event" is a unit of MPEG-2 video information with a normal playing time
of up to and including 133 minutes. The royalty for each MPEG-2 Packaged
Medium having a normal playing time up to and including 12 minutes, but
not more than 12 minutes, is $0.01 per copy.

In addition, MPEG LA now offers an Amendment to the MPEG-2 License that
reduces the royalty for MPEG-2 Packaged Medium products from January 1,
2007 forward as follows:

January 1, 2007 - to US $0.028 per MPEG-2 Video Event or disc

January 1, 2008 - to US $0.026 per MPEG-2 Video Event or disc

January 1, 2009 - to US $0.024 per MPEG-2 Video Event or disc

January 1, 2010 - to US $0.022 per MPEG-2 Video Event or disc

January 1, 2011 - to US $0.020 per MPEG-2 Video Event or disc

Licensees electing to sign the Amendment and enjoy the reduced royalty
rates agree to keep the License in place through December 31, 2012. For
those Licensees who do not elect the Amendment, the current royalty rate
of $0.03 per disc will continue to apply during the current Term which
runs through December 31, 2010.

For your further background, the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License
includes more than 800 patents owned by 25 Licensors, and our nearly
1,300 Licensees account for most of the MPEG-2 products in the current
world marketplace. More detailed information about the MPEG-2 Patent
Portfolio License, including License terms, royalty rates and essential
patent owners, may be found at http://www.mpegla.com/m2/.

I hope the above information is helpful. If you care to provide me with
your physical mailing address, I will be glad to send you a package (via
FedEx) containing the MPEG-2 License for your review.

I look forward to hearing from you again.

With best regards,

Sidney A. Wolf
Licensing Associate
MPEG LA
4601 Willard Avenue
Suite 200
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
U.S.A.

Tel: (+1)-301-986-6660
Fax: (+1)-301-986-8575
Email: swolf@mpegla.com
http://www.mpegla.com

What MOVIEGEEK stated is true for royalty free works, such as stock clips, stock sounds and so on. You do not have to pay an additional fee for those items. For every DVD you create outside of your personal use, requires a license.

[disturbed1]

There are royalty fees for the audio & video formats when used for commercial purposes , even open source ones like xvid

No, only for software that uses that code to create or perhaps play it. Not for the media files in that format.

If you're a business that makes/charges money, and want to avoid a possible lawsuit, it would be worth while to avoid xvid for commercial purposes, and forgo Divx with a commercial license for redistribution. There are clauses that can be interpreted as not needing to pay fees on content if said content is free of charge. I personally wouldn't attempt it without contacting mpegla for clarification. Xvid is of questionalbe legality as well. The source code is perfectly legal, it's the binary distribution of compiled code that can result in a lawsuit.

Do you have to get Microsoft's permission to distribute a file in Word DOC format?

No, but you do have to have a license to create, and open the DOC format, or face possible patent issues. Although, now, MS does have that Open Specification Promise, which does include the DOC format.
This promise is not an assurance either (i) that any of Microsoft’s issued patent claims covers a Covered Implementation or are enforceable or (ii) that a Covered Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party. No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise.

People seem to get confused between open source software (Xvid) using patent protected codecs (MPEG-4), vs open source software using non patent protected codecs (Ogg Vorbis/Ogg Theora). Lame is an open source mp3 encoder, madplay is an open source mp3 decoder, mp3 is a patented codec. Distributing an mp3 file encoded with lame for playback with madplay can result in a possible lawsuit if you don't pay the correct people the money they think you owe them

[firstbase]

Let me back up and explain my question (which I should have done to begin with) - my wife has been making those little 5-10 minute home movie/picture slide show discs for family and friends. No problem. Make 'em, give 'em away. Now, of all things, she has people offering her money to do it for them. She is using Muvee Reveal or Autoproducer to make them. Also using all kinds of mp3's purchased through iTunes. What would she need to do/get licenses for in order to sell these friggin movies legally? I know the music licensing is a whole separate deal. With my luck I tell her to knock herself out thinking this is going nowhere, she then begins to make a bazillion $$$ doing so and then I get all kinds of legal letters in my mailbox. Might as well set her up right from the beginning. Any suggestions? Again, thanks for the help. I lurk here because I find you guys interesting and knowledgble. Now I had the need to post....

[MOVIEGEEK]

Also using all kinds of mp3's purchased through iTunes. What would she need to do/get licenses for in order to sell these friggin movies legally? I know the music licensing is a whole separate deal.

If you want to use copyrighted music from iTunes then you will have to contact this agency: http://www.harryfox.com/index.jsp
Getting a business license from your city or county is also a good idea,not to mention keeping records for the IRS.
The two organizations you don't want to offend are the RIAA and IRS.

[AlanHK]

There are royalty fees for the audio & video formats when used for commercial purposes , even open source ones like xvid

No, only for software that uses that code to create or perhaps play it. Not for the media files in that format.

If you're a business that makes/charges money, and want to avoid a possible lawsuit, it would be worth while to avoid xvid for commercial purposes, and forgo Divx with a commercial license for redistribution. There are clauses that can be interpreted as not needing to pay fees on content if said content is free of charge. I personally wouldn't attempt it without contacting mpegla for clarification. Xvid is of questionalbe legality as well. The source code is perfectly legal, it's the binary distribution of compiled code that can result in a lawsuit.

MPEGLA is hardly a disinterested party. Of course they're going to tell you that you should pay them and get their permission. Their opinion has no legal force. Has there been a legal judgement (by a real judge), on this issue? Or is it just intimidation?

Do you have to get Microsoft's permission to distribute a file in Word DOC format?

No, but you do have to have a license to create, and open the DOC format, or face possible patent issues.

WTF? I just do not believe this. There are probably a billion people in the world who have done this and Microsoft has not sued one of them on this issue to my knowledge.
And there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of software programs that can read and/or write DOC format files, most created with no permission of Microsoft. As long as thay haven't actually copied Microsoft code they are perfectly legal, and again I have never heard of MS suing anyone on this.

People seem to get confused between open source software (Xvid) using patent protected codecs (MPEG-4), vs open source software using non patent protected codecs (Ogg Vorbis/Ogg Theora). Lame is an open source mp3 encoder, madplay is an open source mp3 decoder, mp3 is a patented codec. Distributing an mp3 file encoded with lame for playback with madplay can result in a possible lawsuit if you don't pay the correct people the money they think you owe them

Again, untold billions of MP3 files have been created, has this ever happened?

[AlanHK]

Let me back up and explain my question (which I should have done to begin with) - my wife has been making those little 5-10 minute home movie/picture slide show discs for family and friends. No problem. Make 'em, give 'em away. Now, of all things, she has people offering her money to do it for them. She is using Muvee Reveal or Autoproducer to make them. Also using all kinds of mp3's

My opinion (freely given and worth nothing): don't worry about the media formats. Despite theoretical issues as others have mentioned, this is not a real-world problem.

However, the music is, regardless of where you got it forom.
Do not use music from iTunes, or a CD, or any normal source.
Either do it yourself, pay a musician, or Google "royalty free music" or "stock music" to find a source, where you pay a small fee and are done.

If there are any video production houses in your neighbourhood, ask them for a contact.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Sorry for the noob question...can I use a program such as Cyberlink PowerDirector or Sony Vegas for commercial purposes? Make movies to sell?

Thanks in advance...!

As long as you have the full commercial licenses. If you have an academic license through a child at school etc then you cannot.

[lordsmurf]

AlanHK gave the best advice.

My opinion (freely given and worth nothing): don't worry about the media formats. Despite theoretical issues as others have mentioned, this is not a real-world problem. However, the music is, regardless of where you got it forom. Do not use music from iTunes, or a CD, or any normal source. Either do it yourself, pay a musician, or Google "royalty free music" or "stock music" to find a source, where you pay a small fee and are done. If there are any video production houses in your neighbourhood, ask them for a contact.

All this theoretical boogeyman stuff is for the birds.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I have to agree with AlanHK,there are no documented cases in the US where codec owners have won a lawsuit against individuals.It's very difficult to prove in court that a defendant used their codec.Using copyrighted material(music,film,etc) without permission is very easy to prosecute and win,many cases are well documented.

DISCLAIMER:I am not an attorney.

[JohnnyMalaria]

MPEGLA is hardly a disinterested party. Of course they're going to tell you that you should pay them and get their permission. Their opinion has no legal force. Has there been a legal judgement (by a real judge), on this issue? Or is it just intimidation?

http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_06-11-30_pr.pdf

[AlanHK]

MPEGLA is hardly a disinterested party. Of course they're going to tell you that you should pay them and get their permission. Their opinion has no legal force. Has there been a legal judgement (by a real judge), on this issue? Or is it just intimidation?

http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_06-11-30_pr.pdf

Interesting, but this case was in Germany, not relevant to other countries. And again, it's MPEGLA's version, and there is no explanation as to what the case was actually about.

[JohnnyMalaria]

You didn't ask for an example in a specific country - you asked for an example where there has been a legal judgement (by a real judge). I provided the news release link for convenience.

The company - ODS - has been found liable in more than a dozen similar cases brought before the same court. The court's decisions are now a matter of the public record.

Being a German court doesn't limit its validity. Germany is part of the EU - a larger trading bloc than NAFTA. And many states in the US take into account international law.

MPEGLA seem to be rather successful in settling out of court either by getting undisclosed damages or making those they see as violators cease their activities. Now, that could be seen as intimidation but it can also be seen as a wise move by those deliberately walking a fine line choosing to avoid the negative publicity and cost associated with going to trial.

Personally, I think the MPEGLA are fully justified in their pursuit of other companies making money on the back of someone else's IP without paying for it. The biggest bone of contention for me is the prohibitively high licensing costs for some of the technology that put them out of reach of very small volume individuals. But a couple of cents per 'MPEG2 video event' isn't exactly extortion. They seem much more concerned with going after hardware companies using their technology without permission.

[firstbase]

Never knew I would open up a can of worms on this! So...in my case...to recap.. it is ok to make, burn and sell the movies coming out of Muvee or PowerDirector. Their effects and transitions etc. are royalty free. The songs have to be licensed. The encoding used by the software....sounds like they could get a hair up their $ss and maybe come after you if they want to but they don't. Seems it would almost be easier to just pay everyone their $.03 and be done with it although I haven't a clue how much Michael Jackson wants her to pay to put "Beat It" in a one off family home movie...! $.05? $.35? A whole dollar?

[lordsmurf]

I just find this hard to believe. Adobe software is used by many pros, and it does not come with any documentation that says "oh by the way, even though you paid out the ass for the ability to encode MPEG-2, you need to send a half nickel to some turd burglars in California for every DVD you create".

In 8 years of creating DVDs, I've never heard of any of this, from anybody.

[JohnnyMalaria]

It's not up to Adobe. That's like saying Ford are required to tell me not to drink and drive.

At less than $0.03 a disc, the MPEGLA aren't going to come after you if you sell a few thousand a year since it will cost them more than they'd get. If you are marketing millions of discs that's different.

I still don't understand why, when it comes to non-physical technologies, that people think they have a right to steal and make money from those that invested millions of dollars to create the technologies.

[disturbed1]

MPEGLA is hardly a disinterested party. Of course they're going to tell you that you should pay them and get their permission. Their opinion has no legal force. Has there been a legal judgement (by a real judge), on this issue? Or is it just intimidation?

It's the law. There are those that obey, and those that don't. How many people run a stop sign, yet don't get a ticket? Just because YOU broke the law, and did not get caught, does this make it legal?

WTF? I just do not believe this. There are probably a billion people in the world who have done this and Microsoft has not sued one of them on this issue to my knowledge.

You forgot about that license agreement you agreed to when you installed Windows, or when you first powered on your purchased PC . Mac has payed Microsoft license fees. Microsoft attempted to sue Linux users for patent infringements.

As long as thay haven't actually copied Microsoft code they are perfectly legal, and again I have never heard of MS suing anyone on this.

You clearly don'y understand what a patent is. There is a software copyright license (Word) which protects the source code of the software itself. Then there is a patent (DOC format), which protects the idea of what the software creates.

Again, untold billions of MP3 files have been created, has this ever happened?

To repeat again -
It's the law. There are those that obey, and those that don't. How many people run a stop sign, yet don't get a ticket? Just because YOU broke the law, and did not get caught, does this make it legal?


Once you are in business to make money, you are looked at differently than the normal average joe PC user. Honestly who cares what most people do? But imagine what Amazon had to do to be able to distribute and charge for MP3's. If they hadn't paid a license fee ......

You sound like a personal user that does not currently have a multimedia distribution company. You're spreading FUD which could potentially get someone attempting to do things in a legal manor in serious trouble.

[MOVIEGEEK]

Seems it would almost be easier to just pay everyone their $.03 and be done with it although I haven't a clue how much Michael Jackson wants her to pay to put "Beat It" in a one off family home movie...! $.05? $.35? A whole dollar?

If you read that website I linked above it says the license is ~$.10 per song,so if you sell 100 DVD's with one song it would cost you $10.00.
http://www.harryfox.com/public/licenseeRateCurrent.jsp

[AlanHK]

You didn't ask for an example in a specific country - you asked for an example where there has been a legal judgement (by a real judge).

Fine. And that all the cases cited are in Germany indicates it really may not be relevant outside that country.

The company - ODS - has been found liable in more than a dozen similar cases brought before the same court. The court's decisions are now a matter of the public record.

Liable for doing what? The MPEGLA press release is very vague, and I don't have access to German court records, even if I could read German.

Being a German court doesn't limit its validity. Germany is part of the EU - a larger trading bloc than NAFTA. And many states in the US take into account international law.

The case was several years ago. Yet no other cases in other countries seem to have occurred. Despite millions of videos being made and sold all over the world, only in Germany is there a problem. So I think it is a peculiarity of German law, but again, I have no idea of what law was supposedly violated, or how.

MPEGLA seem to be rather successful in settling out of court either by getting undisclosed damages or making those they see as violators cease their activities. Now, that could be seen as intimidation but it can also be seen as a wise move by those deliberately walking a fine line choosing to avoid the negative publicity and cost associated with going to trial.

Yes, it does sound like intimidation.

But a couple of cents per 'MPEG2 video event' isn't exactly extortion.

Yes it is, if they have no right to it.

They seem much more concerned with going after hardware companies using their technology without permission.

Patents cover hardware or software encoders. But not media, and I really doubt they have a case for that.

[AlanHK]

It's not up to Adobe. That's like saying Ford are required to tell me not to drink and drive.

Car analogies? Is this Slashdot?

I still don't understand why, when it comes to non-physical technologies, that people think they have a right to steal and make money from those that invested millions of dollars to create the technologies.

"Steal"? When you PAY for an MPEG encoder, you have an expectation that you can use it for its stated purpose without being sued. If Adobe didn't license the patent, then they have a case. I'm pretty sure Adobe would not have neglected that.

[JohnnyMalaria]

With Adobe, for example, you are licensed to use the Mainconcept encoder because Adobe have licensed their technology. Mainconcept have licensed the MPEG technology. But the content creator is required to pay a royalty unless an agreement specifically states otherwise. That's the way it is. The Ford analogy is simple and appropriate. They make the car. It is illegal to drink and drive. You buy and then drive the car. It is up to you to know the law as to what you can and cannot do, not Ford.

I doubt Paramount can release a DVD and not pay royalties to MPEGLA just because they bought DVD authoring software.

You can buy the mechanical rights to create and sell a compilation CD of top ten hits but that doesn't mean you don't have to pay royalties to the people who own the rights to the song.

[JohnnyMalaria]

I just find this hard to believe. Adobe software is used by many pros, and it does not come with any documentation that says "oh by the way, even though you paid out the ass for the ability to encode MPEG-2, you need to send a half nickel to some turd burglars in California for every DVD you create".

RTFM

For example:

12. MPEG-2 Notice. To the extent that the Apple Software contains MPEG-2 functionality, the following provision applies: ANY USE OF THIS PRODUCT OTHER THAN CONSUMER PERSONAL USE IN ANY MANNER THAT COMPLIES WITH THE MPEG-2 STANDARD FOR ENCODING VIDEO INFORMATION FOR PACKAGED MEDIA IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT A LICENSE UNDER APPLICABLE PATENTS IN THE MPEG-2 PATENT PORTFOLIO, WHICH LICENSE IS AVAILABLE FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C., 250 STEELE STREET, SUITE 300, DENVER, COLORADO 80206.

Adobe state the same for CS4 ( http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/pdfs/Gen_WWCombined-combined-20080623_1026.pdf ).

And, to address the OP's specific question, Sony's Vegas carries the same language. For Pro 8, it is on page 4 of the manual ( http://sony-570.vo.llnwd.net/dspcdn/manuals/vegaspro80_manual.exe ).

Blindly clicking Next during install and not bothering to read licensing agreements is no defense. If you don't know if creating material for commercial use requires an additional MPEG-LA license, then there are two simple words: due diligence. A couple of phone calls would clarify it. If you believe there is no legal basis to having to pay, sue the MPEG-LA or wait to be sued and then have your day in court and set a precedent. I'm sure all the behemoths that have settled with the MPEG-LA are just waiting in the wings for a producer of high school recital DVDs to achieve what they couldn't.

[SCDVD]

When does the patent(s) expire?

[JohnnyMalaria]

The last one expires in 2023 according to http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2008/7/18/232618/312

This site also has a link to a pdf that lists 31 pages of MPEG-2 patent numbers(!) by company.