At PMG we are video and web professionals who are constantly using the web to display our product to potential customers and encoding video for our customers. I am constantly reading blogs and other sources to stay up to date on the latest developments in technology and the restrictions on them. One of the most widely used encoding standards for the web is H.264, MPEG4 and a variety of other flavors of H.264. This is a great compression technique as it’s size to quality ratio is excellent, but being a professional and using this video compression standard to make money may come with some legal hang ups.
If you read the user agreements for Apple’s Final Cut Pro and a variety of other professional and consumer software you will see scary looking legalese like this, “To the extent that the Apple Software contains AVC encoding and/or decoding functionality, commercial use of H.264/AVC requires additional licensing and the following provision applies: THE AVC FUNCTIONALITY IN THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED HEREIN ONLY 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 AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO.”(from Apples FCP license agreement).
When I first read phrases like “… licensed herein only for the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer…”, I was a bit worried. We encode videos into H.264 all the time for clients so that websites like YouTube can re-encode them in an optimal way. A lot of the cameras that we acquire on shoot to some form of H.264, whether its MPEG4 or a type of AVC Intra.
While I was worried at first I did some research and came across a really good article posted on CNET. This article included an interview with MPEG LA’s director of global licensing that shed some light on why the licensing terms seem so tough. MPEG LA is the organization that handles the licensing of a wide variety of H.264 patents. They are the people that you would need to license the use of H.264 from(depending on the use of the encoding standard).
“The purpose of the provision in the MPEG LA license is to ensure that the license doesn’t cover commercial distribution of H.264-encoded video,” Homiller said. “It would be nice if there were a ‘gentler’ way to convey this, but it might be challenging to do so without opening up some loopholes that the licensers would regret.” read the rest from CNET here.
There is some other general good news about H.264- the general consensus is that the person at the end of the distribution chain would be the one paying a licensing fee if one is required. For most users of H.264 this means that the video hosting site such as YouTube, Vimeo or Facebook is paying the licensing fees to use H.264. Also MPEG LA announced recently that they would extend the free licensing of H.264 for internet distribution through 2015.
The other interesting piece of the puzzle is Google‘s new entry into the online video encoding. Google acquired On2 and is now open sourcing their video compression standard, VP8, for anyone to use and says that it will be compatible with HTML5. The new standard is called WebM.
“WebM is a newly open-sourced multimedia format, consisting primarily of the video format formerly known as VP8. The goal is to provide an open, easy video experience that works across modern browsers and integrates with HTML 5…,” read more here.
There are still many unanswered questions as to what WebM will look like, how well it will work and if it will provide a viable alternative to H.264.