+
After asking the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK)
+why
+they can broadcast and stream H.264 video without an agreement with
+the MPEG LA, I was wiser, but still confused. So I asked MPEG LA
+if their understanding matched that of NRK. As far as I can tell, it
+does not.
+
+
I started by asking for more information about the various
+licensing classes and what exactly is covered by the "Internet
+Broadcast AVC Video" class that NRK pointed me at to explain why NRK
+did not need a license for streaming H.264 video:
+
+
+
+According to
+a
+MPEG LA press release dated 2010-02-02, there is no charge when
+using MPEG AVC/H.264 according to the terms of "Internet Broadcast AVC
+Video". I am trying to understand exactly what the terms of "Internet
+Broadcast AVC Video" is, and wondered if you could help me. What
+exactly is covered by these terms, and what is not?
+
+The only source of more information I have been able to find is a
+PDF named
+AVC
+Patent Portfolio License Briefing, which states this about the
+fees:
+
+
+ - Where End User pays for AVC Video
+
+ - Subscription (not limited by title) â 100,000 or fewer
+ subscribers/yr = no royalty; > 100,000 to 250,000 subscribers/yr =
+ $25,000; >250,000 to 500,000 subscribers/yr = $50,000; >500,000 to
+ 1M subscribers/yr = $75,000; >1M subscribers/yr = $100,000
+
+ - Title-by-Title - 12 minutes or less = no royalty; >12 minutes in
+ length = lower of (a) 2% or (b) $0.02 per title
+
+
+ - Where remuneration is from other sources
+
+ - Free Television - (a) one-time $2,500 per transmission encoder or
+ (b) annual fee starting at $2,500 for > 100,000 HH rising to
+ maximum $10,000 for >1,000,000 HH
+
+ - Internet Broadcast AVC Video (not title-by-title, not subscription)
+ â no royalty for life of the AVC Patent Portfolio License
+
+
+
+Am I correct in assuming that the four categories listed is the
+categories used when selecting licensing terms, and that "Internet
+Broadcast AVC Video" is the category for things that do not fall into
+one of the other three categories? Can you point me to a good source
+explaining what is ment by "title-by-title" and "Free Television" in
+the license terms for AVC/H.264?
+
+Will a web service providing H.264 encoded video content in a
+"video on demand" fashing similar to Youtube and Vimeo, where no
+subscription is required and no payment is required from end users to
+get access to the videos, fall under the terms of the "Internet
+Broadcast AVC Video", ie no royalty for life of the AVC Patent
+Portfolio license? Does it matter if some users are subscribed to get
+access to personalized services?
+
+Note, this request and all answers will be published on the
+Internet.
+
+
+
The answer came quickly from Benjamin J. Myers, Licensing Associate
+with the MPEG LA:
+
+
+Thank you for your message and for your interest in MPEG LA. We
+appreciate hearing from you and I will be happy to assist you.
+
+As you are aware, MPEG LA offers our AVC Patent Portfolio License
+which provides coverage under patents that are essential for use of
+the AVC/H.264 Standard (MPEG-4 Part 10). Specifically, coverage is
+provided for end products and video content that make use of AVC/H.264
+technology. Accordingly, the party offering such end products and
+video to End Users concludes the AVC License and is responsible for
+paying the applicable royalties.
+
+Regarding Internet Broadcast AVC Video, the AVC License generally
+defines such content to be video that is distributed to End Users over
+the Internet free-of-charge. Therefore, if a party offers a service
+which allows users to upload AVC/H.264 video to its website, and such
+AVC Video is delivered to End Users for free, then such video would
+receive coverage under the sublicense for Internet Broadcast AVC
+Video, which is not subject to any royalties for the life of the AVC
+License. This would also apply in the scenario where a user creates a
+free online account in order to receive a customized offering of free
+AVC Video content. In other words, as long as the End User is given
+access to or views AVC Video content at no cost to the End User, then
+no royalties would be payable under our AVC License.
+
+On the other hand, if End Users pay for access to AVC Video for a
+specific period of time (e.g., one month, one year, etc.), then such
+video would constitute Subscription AVC Video. In cases where AVC
+Video is delivered to End Users on a pay-per-view basis, then such
+content would constitute Title-by-Title AVC Video. If a party offers
+Subscription or Title-by-Title AVC Video to End Users, then they would
+be responsible for paying the applicable royalties you noted below.
+
+Finally, in the case where AVC Video is distributed for free
+through an "over-the-air, satellite and/or cable transmission", then
+such content would constitute Free Television AVC Video and would be
+subject to the applicable royalties.
+
+For your reference, I have attached
+a
+.pdf copy of the AVC License. You will find the relevant
+sublicense information regarding AVC Video in Sections 2.2 through
+2.5, and the corresponding royalties in Section 3.1.2 through 3.1.4.
+You will also find the definitions of Title-by-Title AVC Video,
+Subscription AVC Video, Free Television AVC Video, and Internet
+Broadcast AVC Video in Section 1 of the License. Please note that the
+electronic copy is provided for informational purposes only and cannot
+be used for execution.
+
+I hope the above information is helpful. If you have additional
+questions or need further assistance with the AVC License, please feel
+free to contact me directly.
+
+
+
Having a fresh copy of the license text was useful, and knowing
+that the definition of Title-by-Title required payment per title made
+me aware that my earlier understanding of that phrase had been wrong.
+But I still had a few questions:
+
+
+I have a small followup question. Would it be possible for me to get
+a license with MPEG LA even if there are no royalties to be paid? The
+reason I ask, is that some video related products have a copyright
+clause limiting their use without a license with MPEG LA. The clauses
+typically look similar to this:
+
+
+ This product is licensed under the AVC patent portfolio license for
+ the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer to (a) encode
+ video in compliance with the AVC standard ("AVC video") and/or (b)
+ 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. No
+ license is granted or shall be implied for any other use. additional
+ information may be obtained from MPEG LA L.L.C.
+
+
+It is unclear to me if this clause mean that I need to enter into
+an agreement with MPEG LA to use the product in question, even if
+there are no royalties to be paid to MPEG LA. I suspect it will
+differ depending on the jurisdiction, and mine is Norway. What is
+MPEG LAs view on this?
+
+
+
According to the answer, MPEG LA believe those using such tools for
+non-personal or commercial use need a license with them:
+
+
+
+With regard to the Notice to Customers, I would like to begin by
+clarifying that the Notice from Section 7.1 of the AVC License
+reads:
+
+THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR
+THE PERSONAL USE OF A CONSUMER OR OTHER USES IN WHICH IT DOES NOT
+RECEIVE REMUNERATION 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 ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM
+A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED
+OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE
+OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM
+
+The Notice to Customers is intended to inform End Users of the
+personal usage rights (for example, to watch video content) included
+with the product they purchased, and to encourage any party using the
+product for commercial purposes to contact MPEG LA in order to become
+licensed for such use (for example, when they use an AVC Product to
+deliver Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free Television or Internet
+Broadcast AVC Video to End Users, or to re-Sell a third party's AVC
+Product as their own branded AVC Product).
+
+Therefore, if a party is to be licensed for its use of an AVC
+Product to Sell AVC Video on a Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free
+Television or Internet Broadcast basis, that party would need to
+conclude the AVC License, even in the case where no royalties were
+payable under the License. On the other hand, if that party (either a
+Consumer or business customer) simply uses an AVC Product for their
+own internal purposes and not for the commercial purposes referenced
+above, then such use would be included in the royalty paid for the AVC
+Products by the licensed supplier.
+
+Finally, I note that our AVC License provides worldwide coverage in
+countries that have AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, including
+Norway.
+
+I hope this clarification is helpful. If I may be of any further
+assistance, just let me know.
+
+
+
The mentioning of Norwegian patents made me a bit confused, so I
+asked for more information:
+
+
+
+But one minor question at the end. If I understand you correctly,
+you state in the quote above that there are patents in the AVC Patent
+Portfolio that are valid in Norway. This make me believe I read the
+list available from <URL:
+http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx
+> incorrectly, as I believed the "NO" prefix in front of patents
+were Norwegian patents, and the only one I could find under Mitsubishi
+Electric Corporation expired in 2012. Which patents are you referring
+to that are relevant for Norway?
+
+
+
+
Again, the quick answer explained how to read the list of patents
+in that list:
+
+
+
+Your understanding is correct that the last AVC Patent Portfolio
+Patent in Norway expired on 21 October 2012. Therefore, where AVC
+Video is both made and Sold in Norway after that date, then no
+royalties would be payable for such AVC Video under the AVC License.
+With that said, our AVC License provides historic coverage for AVC
+Products and AVC Video that may have been manufactured or Sold before
+the last Norwegian AVC patent expired. I would also like to clarify
+that coverage is provided for the country of manufacture and the
+country of Sale that has active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents.
+
+Therefore, if a party offers AVC Products or AVC Video for Sale in
+a country with active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents (for example,
+Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc.), then that party would still need
+coverage under the AVC License even if such products or video are
+initially made in a country without active AVC Patent Portfolio
+Patents (for example, Norway). Similarly, a party would need to
+conclude the AVC License if they make AVC Products or AVC Video in a
+country with active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, but eventually Sell
+such AVC Products or AVC Video in a country without active AVC Patent
+Portfolio Patents.
+
+
+
As far as I understand it, MPEG LA believe anyone using Adobe
+Premiere and other video related software with a H.264 distribution
+license need a license agreement with MPEG LA to use such tools for
+anything non-private or commercial, while it is OK to set up a
+Youtube-like service as long as no-one pays to get access to the
+content. I still have no clear idea how this applies to Norway, where
+none of the patents MPEG LA is licensing are valid. Will the
+copyright terms take precedence or can those terms be ignored because
+the patents are not valid in Norway?
+
+