Frage von DSLR-Freak:
From the Instructions to D7000 (see picture in Appendix -> Login) show that:
The user must apply individually licensed if the video of a D7000 for commercial purposes is utilized. Similar clauses in other guides me in this class are not known.
What say you?
Antwort von PeterM:
This is an invalid clause.
A private individuals
Note also a private individual may well act commercially
Here the clause is invalid because unexpectedly.
B Business So for example if the company buys a video cam.
Again, the limit goes to empty, since the corresponding passage in the manual when you buy the camera is not part of the contract. And certainly not the English part of the manual.
Could be different only if the restriction in question refers supplied software, and to a separate EULA would be confirmed. But that would dannja synonymous only apply to the Software and not for the camera.
Would be interesting to construct when it would be on the packaging and the Kamerea on power as a confirmation
"This camera may only be used privately" would show.
But I doubt synonymous since the stock would have the right.
Ultimately, no one would buy a synonymous Camera.
Quite apart. It is no known case where such a thing would verhandet before a German court.
Very practical. Usually the films are so processed with an editing program. The license for the codec is then covered by the program editing.
Antwort von Bernd E.:
... Users must individually apply for a license if the video of the D7000 for commercial use by ... What say you? ... Has the same background as the same discussion on AVC (HD) camcorder of all price ranges, which was months ago transversely through forums and journals. Two examples with the following links:
http://forum.slashcam.de/die-sache-with-dem-h264-codec-vt80938.html
http://forum.slashcam.de/lizenzgebuhren-fur-mpeg--vt30375.html
