Here's some text from the D7000 User's Manual (page xvii):
"AVC Patent Portfolio License THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE 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 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"
Is this weird or what? Not the existance of such contracts (I've bought plenty of commercial software in my life with restrictive contracts), but that Nikon is selling a restricted license on a $1,200 device.
How did that work with Chase Jarvis' promotional videos for the D7000, shot with great fanfare, using D7000s?
Nikon seems to be promoting this for (among other things) wedding and event photographers; they can't use video from the camera? From the Jarvis blog regarding the camera: "Will do well for lots of markets. The photojournalist, the wedding shooter, the pro-sumer, the video crowd, backup body for pros. Pretty much everybody wins."
#1. "RE: D7000 Video for Non-Commercial Use Only" In response to Reply # 0
St Petersburg, RU
That is pretty standard wording for patent pool licensing. The details are always in the fine print. It costs money for commercial distribution either as in a manufactured product that encodes and decodes or based on end users. Almost all patented coding systems have sliding scales with a threshold that triggers license fees. In the AVC/H.264 patent pool that threshold 100,000 units per year. If you sell over 100,001 copies of a H.264 encoded productions during a year you need to pay. I see nothing Draconian or unfair about this patent license fee structure. If I sold 100,001 to 250,000 wedding videos in a year, I would be quite happy to pay the $25,000 license fee. Or $75,000 for 1,000,000 copies. Stan St Petersburg Russia
#3. "RE: D7000 Video for Non-Commercial Use Only" In response to Reply # 1 Wed 10-Nov-10 03:17 AM by csgaraglino
Colorado Springs, US
So let's talk about this a bit...
If I record on the D7000 under the current license agreement, but edit in my NLE of choice, say Adobe Premier, and out put using a codec from PRE (not the raw from the D7K) shouldn't I be good to go commercially?
Isn't this restriction only on the raw footage, as compressed in camera?
#5. "RE: D7000 Video for Non-Commercial Use Only" In response to Reply # 2
A couepl of things come to mind regaring this.
1 - What happens if you use the D7k to record a historic moment, some exciting news footage or some other momentous event? And you give it to a news channel, get a modest some of money for it (no idea how much) and then the news channel distributes it all around the world?
2 - how different is this camera to the dozens of other video cameras around the place and do they have the same non-commerical use clause? I would imagine that dedicated video cameras wouldn't be so restricted as this clause so why the difference?