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?
-
