I use PD for anything I want.
The consensus was the EULA means you cannot copy and distribute the program.
This thread has a few points relevant.
http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/21360.page#113895
I have used PD since V5, won a few contests, had my work shown on local TV, and national TV (FOX). I am still a free man.
To paraphrase a great American, "They'll have to pry my mouse from my cold dead hands, er...claws..." HP Envy Phoenix/4thGen i7-4770(4@3.4GHz~turbo>3.9)
Nvidia GTX 960(4GB)/16GB DDR3/
Canon Vixia HV30/HF-M40/HF-M41/HF-G20/Olympus E-PL5.
Tape capture using 6 VCR, TBC-1000, Elite BVP4+, Sony D8 camcorder with TBC.
https://www.facebook.com/BarryAFTT

I messaged support, and they replied:

"Cyberlink software is used for personal, and they do not recommend for the commercial purpose."

Thoughts ?

Quote: Thoughts ?

They might be able to recommend it once menus have been sorted out

Quote: I messaged support, and they replied:

"Cyberlink software is used for personal, and they do not recommend for the commercial purpose."

Thoughts ?

Check with them again. Maybe they mean it is not suitable for a Hollywood length/quality movie.

I called their support line this morning, and the agent I spoke with told me, that you would be allowed to do anything you want with your final product. AS long AS YOUR NOT editing other people's footage - and it is your own.

I called them back this afternoon to close an earlier ticket, and we went through my questions and concerns again. This time another agent told me for sure that you CANNOT sell your copies of your work, in any way.

The only things you can do is upload to youtube etc etc. and give your dvd's / blu-rays as gifts to friends, family, co-workers.

But at the end of the day, cyberlink powerdirector is used for only personal stuff, and NOT to be used for commercial reasons.

I was obviously upset, after receiving two completely different answers over the phone. Very upset.

So now it's time for me to jump onto another editing program that allows for commerical uses.

I hope this information helps others who had the same questions and concerns.

See my previous post. HP Envy Phoenix/4thGen i7-4770(4@3.4GHz~turbo>3.9)
Nvidia GTX 960(4GB)/16GB DDR3/
Canon Vixia HV30/HF-M40/HF-M41/HF-G20/Olympus E-PL5.
Tape capture using 6 VCR, TBC-1000, Elite BVP4+, Sony D8 camcorder with TBC.
https://www.facebook.com/BarryAFTT

Other than possibly using PD effects or DVD menus, is there really anyway they will know? I don't think the editor is embedded in the video file, as far as I know. __________________________________
CORNBLOSSOM

Quote: Other than possibly using PD effects or DVD menus, is there really anyway they will know? I don't think the editor is embedded in the video file, as far as I know.

I agree with James' assessment. The use of copyrighted material is a "problem area" for some editor. The default selection of DVD Menus & DZ material should be for non-commercial use. If you make your own Disc Menus (backgrounds, buttons, layout, music etc), then add your own video, you're not reliant on the work of others and you own everything - no-one has call upon you for breech of copyright. Using PDR to edit video is what it's designed for. What you add to the production and the compliance with copyrighted material is for you to ensure.

PDR is a fast editing tool for quick smooth production.

Just my opinion.

Dafydd

A friend gave me the below info: .... this flash mob musical video created by a team of professional broadcast group in Taiwan, they used PowerDirector and other CyberLink software for making this production.

Hi everyone,

Admittedly, I’m not a tech guy. And all of the points and perspectives given above, seem to me to be very legitimate thoughts and perspectives.

But even though it may be at my peril to chime in here to respectfully disagree with “some” of what has been imparted above, it is however my understanding (after some research and a some direct exchanges with some department heads at CL corporate in Taipei), that the supposed “For Non-Commercial -or- Private Use Only” issue, is really not necessarily related to any DVD templates, or DirectorZone downloads, or even really to the actual video content.
Those content issues are separate copyright issues, unrelated to the "Non-Commercial Use Only” reference in PD’s EULA (End User License Agreement).

The “For Non-Commercial Use” issue that was initial referenced when “XG-300” started this thread, is more related to the fact that “some” of the “codec licenses” in a video editing software, comes at different costs and fees.
A licensing fee, that CL pays, and which is ultimately passed on and is reflected in PD’s retail price.

It is my understanding that a codec’s (e.g. .mp4, .mp3, .wmv, H.264, etc.) patent holder, can and may charge one blanket licensing fee to a software or camera manufacturer, for a use that is intended as being for “Private Use Only” purposes. Then there’s another (presumably higher) licensing fee for “Commercial Use” intended purposes.

For instance, why is it that in PD’s Youtube uploader, that the .wmv format is the only available output format option? A CL department head informed that it’s because the .wmv format / codec is free on the Window / MS platform.

Now I’m sure that someone will jump in here to correct me, if I am way off here.
I am only passing on what I’ve been told, and what I’ve found, owing to a bit of research.

Here for instance, is a portion (albeit one of the older links) of one of the many entries that can be found on the subject of “codec patents and licensing”, via a Google search.

“That ultimately means products that come with an H.264 codec don't also come with a license to use the codec commercially. In order to distribute H.264 content in a way that makes money, the distributor has to pay for a separate license.
So products like Windows 7, Mac OS X, Final Cut Pro, Avid, and modern video cameras aren't licensed to distribute video for commercial use. They all have fine print somewhere that says they're for personal and non-commercial use only. It's language that feels incredibly aggressive and broad, especially since it apparently conflicts with the MPEG-LA's general position that only the final link in the chain, the party selling or distributing the video to the end user, has to pay royalties for using the H.264 encoder.”
Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/
(But there are many others. Some of which seem to just muddy or contradict the other.)

So perhaps Cyberlink’s legal team, in order to cover all their bases, feels obligated to put a blanket “For Private Non-Commercial Use Only" statement in their EULA, to cover themselves as they have no way of knowing which codec a user may use for any production that a user may distribute commercially for compensation.
(Wedding photo / videographers for instance.)

But I would welcome having any of our more knowledgeable members chime in here and educate me and all of us, with regard to any errors or any inaccuracies that I may have proffered here, with regard to the EULA "Private Use" issue/statement being at it’s core, most likely a bulk Private Use codec licensing fee, versus a more expensive bulk Commercial Use codec licensing "fee issue".

______________________________________________________________________________
Click here PDtoots for a collection of PowerDirector Tutorials and Tips

Thanks, Cranston.

This has turned into a fascinating thread.

As a musician and would-be song writer I fully sympathize with a codec writer wanting compensation for his efforts. However, even a song copyright enters the public domain after a while (albeit a long while - 70 years after the copyright holders death). It seems to me that this whole subject needs some serious, world-wide consideration. After all, when one buys a motorcar there is no imposition as to commercial or non-commercial use even though said vehicle is crammed with patented parts. (Yes, yes, I realize that copyrights and patents are not the same).

Even my copy of MS Word is designated 'non-commercial use'. Does that mean I cannot use it to write a song that I subsequently sell? Custom computer: 8 processors, 16G Ram, ,C: drive 250G solid state. F: (Scratch drive) 2x 500Gb raid (0). G: (Data drive) 2Tb raid (1)
Power director Ultimate 12.0.2230.0

According to the CyberLink Products menu pull down the PowerDirector Ultimate Suite is for "Pro and Commercial Video Producer"

http://www.cyberlink.com/products/index_en_US.html?r=1. Click on Products and the first listing under Video Editing.

Seems to me if you want to sell your output buy the Ultimate Suite. Custom computer: 8 processors, 16G Ram, ,C: drive 250G solid state. F: (Scratch drive) 2x 500Gb raid (0). G: (Data drive) 2Tb raid (1)
Power director Ultimate 12.0.2230.0

Here is an excellent article explaining the "Licensing fees" that would have to be paid if selling your video or discs such as a Wedding Video Photographer. The fees are minimal to say the least.

"Per Section 3.1.2 of the AVC License (Title-by-Title AVC Video), the royalty for each title greater than 12 minutes in length is 2.0 percent of the remuneration paid to the Licensee or $0.02 per title, whichever is lower. In other words, the royalty would not exceed $0.02 per disc for the videographer," said MPEG LA spokesman Tom O'Reilly.

But what I found interesting in another forum was that even Professional Grade DSLR and Video cameras ALL have this disclaimer in their operation manuals license that says for "Personal and non-commercial use" since the manufacturer uses a particular codec like H.264.

This article addresses the H.264 video codec licensing fees.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html?tag=mncol

This is a very interesting topic.

Kevin
Check out PDtoots. PowerDirector Tutorials and more! Over 5,000 Subscribers.

Quote: According to the CyberLink Products menu pull down the PowerDirector Ultimate Suite is for "Pro and Commercial Video Producer"

http://www.cyberlink.com/products/index_en_US.html?r=1. Click on Products and the first listing under Video Editing.

Seems to me if you want to sell your output buy the Ultimate Suite.

I believe the end user license for this product still states: "for personal and non-commercial use", which is a bit of a contradiction.

This very subject came up not too long ago in the forum.
Check out PDtoots. PowerDirector Tutorials and more! Over 5,000 Subscribers.

Extra. extra, read all about it! http://www.copyright.gov/

To continue the songwriter analogy, the moment I finish writing the greatest country song ever written and lay my pencil down on the paper, it is deemed to be 'published' and hence is covered by the copyright rules. However, in order to be able to prove to the world that this marvelous work is mine and mine alone, I can send it, and an MP3 disk of it, off to the Library of Congress copyright folks. They in turn will issue my a certificate of copyright.

Now if one of you chaps were to play my song and record it on your new album, you must pay me, in advance, something like $0.091 per copy made of that track (not sold - made). This is managed by, if I remember correctly, The Harry Fox Agency. If you play this song at a live gig (and you do not need my OK to play it) then the venue (or you, if they renege) must pay what I think is called a mechanical license. This is managed by ASCAP and BMI.

When we made our CD, nowhere in the process was there any kind of license for the MP3 technology, the use of ProTools to edit the sound tracks, or any whisper from the Blackfeet Indians for the use of the pencil that they made.


So. Are there any comparable organizations that track the use of these codecs?

I am not a lawyer, but surely, it is a reasonably assumption that when the camera manufacturers obtain the necessary permissions to use whatever technology goes into them there is an implicit expectation that someone, somewhere will use the product in a professional manner. Ditto for the software.
Custom computer: 8 processors, 16G Ram, ,C: drive 250G solid state. F: (Scratch drive) 2x 500Gb raid (0). G: (Data drive) 2Tb raid (1)
Power director Ultimate 12.0.2230.0

Quote: Extra. extra, read all about it! http://www.copyright.gov/

To continue the songwriter analogy, the moment I finish writing the greatest country song ever written and lay my pencil down on the paper, it is deemed to be 'published' and hence is covered by the copyright rules. However, in order to be able to prove to the world that this marvelous work is mine and mine alone, I can send it, and an MP3 disk of it, off to the Library of Congress copyright folks. They in turn will issue my a certificate of copyright.

Now if one of you chaps were to play my song and record it on your new album, you must pay me, in advance, something like $0.091 per copy made of that track (not sold - made). This is managed by, if I remember correctly, The Harry Fox Agency. If you play this song at a live gig (and you do not need my OK to play it) then the venue (or you, if they renege) must pay what I think is called a mechanical license. This is managed by ASCAP and BMI.

When we made our CD, nowhere in the process was there any kind of license for the MP3 technology, the use of ProTools to edit the sound tracks, or any whisper from the Blackfeet Indians for the use of the pencil that they made.


So. Are there any comparable organizations that track the use of these codecs?

I am not a lawyer, but surely, it is a reasonably assumption that when the camera manufacturers obtain the necessary permissions to use whatever technology goes into them there is an implicit expectation that someone, somewhere will use the product in a professional manner. Ditto for the software.

I'll buy your song when its finished!!

This was what I found in using the mp3 codec and using it on virtually all media types for distribution for sale.

http://mp3licensing.com/help/developers.html#58

Kevin
Check out PDtoots. PowerDirector Tutorials and more! Over 5,000 Subscribers.

Quote:

Quote: According to the CyberLink Products menu pull down the PowerDirector Ultimate Suite is for "Pro and Commercial Video Producer"

http://www.cyberlink.com/products/index_en_US.html?r=1. Click on Products and the first listing under Video Editing.

Seems to me if you want to sell your output buy the Ultimate Suite.

I believe the end user license for this product still states: "for personal and non-commercial use", which is a bit of a contradiction.

This very subject came up not too long ago in the forum.

Wait, wait. "A bit of a contradiction" At what point do we see the Terms of Service? If I go to the sales page, see "professional" (or whatever) and lay down my bucks, then as I install this thing, I see the TOS? Do I get my money back if I want to use the program for commercial purposes? Custom computer: 8 processors, 16G Ram, ,C: drive 250G solid state. F: (Scratch drive) 2x 500Gb raid (0). G: (Data drive) 2Tb raid (1)
Power director Ultimate 12.0.2230.0

Quote:

I'll buy your song when its finished!!
Kevin

Be my guest...
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/uphill

or

http://www.amazon.com/Uphill/dp/B002E7KCNC/ref=sr_shvl_album_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1377034445&sr=301-4

Custom computer: 8 processors, 16G Ram, ,C: drive 250G solid state. F: (Scratch drive) 2x 500Gb raid (0). G: (Data drive) 2Tb raid (1)
Power director Ultimate 12.0.2230.0

I have heard no dark tales of adventurous PowerDirector users being dragged off to re-education camps, comrade. HP Envy Phoenix/4thGen i7-4770(4@3.4GHz~turbo>3.9)
Nvidia GTX 960(4GB)/16GB DDR3/
Canon Vixia HV30/HF-M40/HF-M41/HF-G20/Olympus E-PL5.
Tape capture using 6 VCR, TBC-1000, Elite BVP4+, Sony D8 camcorder with TBC.
https://www.facebook.com/BarryAFTT

It is my understanding that a codec’s (e.g. .mp4, .mp3, .wmv, H.264, etc.) patent holder, can and may charge one blanket licensing fee to a software or camera manufacturer, for a use that is intended as being for “Private Use Only” purposes. Then there’s another (presumably higher) licensing fee for “Commercial Use” intended purposes.

That is an interesting point, and one I had not considered. It is possible that this is a disclaimer to limit CyberLink liability if a user gets sued by a copyright holder. It would be nice to know. __________________________________
CORNBLOSSOM