Switch to full style
Discuss anything ProShow Producer related
Post a reply

MPEG-2 Notice Explanation?

Thu Aug 31, 2017 7:12 pm

Hello Enthusiasts,

I was reading the new manual (833 Pages) released with the new Version 9 of Producer and the following notice caught my eye:

MPEG-2 Applicable Use Notice
ANY USE OF THIS PRODUCT OTHER THAN CONSUMER PERSONAL USE MAY 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

What does this mean to me if I am creating slideshows and selling them in quantities of say 100 max? I expect this notice has been included in perhaps every manual that Photodex has written for this product but I've never paid that much attention to these details. If my slideshow does not include the use of MPEG-2, I guess I don't fall under this restriction but how do I know and what are the consequences if I make this blunder and sell something I made and don't have the mentioned license? How do I know for sure that I am legal??

Comments?
Thanks,
Bob

Re: MPEG-2 Notice Explanation?

Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:14 pm

It's Photodex who pays royalties for the licence (then YOU pay it indirectly while buying the software), then you may sell any production without any problem. You may read the licensees list here for MPEG-4 : http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M4V ... nsees.aspx and here for MPEG-2 : http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/ ... nsees.aspx You will notice that Photodex Corporation is in the editors groups who pay the licences to MPEG for each ProShow sold.
Jean-Pierre

Re: MPEG-2 Notice Explanation?

Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:34 pm

The royalty is at end ... it is no more. At least that's the message I received from the MPEG-2 folks last year (or was it the year previous to that?).

Dale

Re: MPEG-2 Notice Explanation?

Mon Sep 04, 2017 12:57 pm

Thanks to both of you for replying. I guess I missed the info regarding the Mpeg-2 licensing requirements when it was published. Thanks again for responding and please know that I appreciate the info.


Bob
Post a reply