Timeline for Do I have to pay a licensing fee to mix in Atmos? What about other dolby formats?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 18 at 23:23 | comment | added | musicamante | » any audio/video content, physical (CD) or digital (web), in Italy. No matter the contents, even if it was completely original (and not officially registered) material, even if it was theoretically released using CC licenses, and even if given for free. If we wanted to freely give out our personally produced CDs, we had to pay. If we wanted to lawfully release them on the web (using a server geographically placed in Italy), we still had to pay (!!!). I know that the Dolby/Atmos case is different, but the issue remains ambiguous, and the only way to clarify it is to directly ask Dolby people. | |
| Apr 18 at 23:23 | comment | added | musicamante | » project (possibly shared on an unknown private website), but the point remains: releasing through known partners or registered licensees is one thing (legal responsibilities of the distribution mostly falls on them), but personal/independent release is a different beast, and may even change a lot depending on state laws. Allow me an example (it's not strictly related, but still about complex copyright matters): I'm not sure about the current situation, but, at least until ~15 years ago, everybody was required to pay a license to the local copyright agency (SIAE) in order to release » | |
| Apr 18 at 23:22 | comment | added | musicamante | » As said, publicly released films showing the Dolby/Atmos logos need to pay a related license. Now, the concept of "publicly released" is quite ambiguous (and laws may change depending on the country): is a film shown at a public film festival as a one time release (and never shown anywhere else) considered as such? Is a personal DVD copy shared among friends (and that becomes wide spread due to word of mouth) considered a public release? What about a privately produced CD that shows that logo in its booklet, then shared among unknown people? I doubt Dolby would file a suit for a personal » | |
| Apr 18 at 23:22 | comment | added | musicamante | I still believe that the page doesn't completely explain the implications of releasing, which is a very ambiguous concept. I suppose you're referring to the "Mixing and delivering" section in the docs, but that part explicitly mentions "digital music distribution services". I'm 99.9% sure that using that path covers most of the problems (they are probably paying some license, even if to just display the Dolby/Atmos logo[s] only to show their capabilities), but the OP never explained how they actually wanted to share their contents. "Give away for free" is vague and dangerously controversial. » | |
| Apr 18 at 4:48 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | @musicamante If you read the whole page and go through the process you’ll see that you don’t need to pay any licensing fees to release a Dolby Atmos file bundle either. Dolby makes money on Atmos in a couple ways. First, you do have to have a Dolby Atmos renderer. That is software that you buy from a company that has paid a license to Dolby for the right to include Atmos rendering in the software they are selling to you. Second, playing back atmos requires the consumer to have an atmos playback system. The maker of that system paid a fee to include the technology to play back Atmos. | |
| Apr 18 at 2:30 | comment | added | musicamante | » audio related technologies): for instance, a film released using Atmos that shows their logo/names either in its promotional material or its contents (eg, the credits) does need a license; but I don't know if it would be possible to release such a film without any Dolby/Atmos logo and without paying the license, including the possibility of showing that name as text. AFAIK, it could technically/legally possible to release an Atmos track without paying any license as long as any of those terms are mentioned in the public release, which can be ambiguous: what about a track description? | |
| Apr 18 at 2:30 | comment | added | musicamante | That is an interesting choice of words: you do not need a license to mix. Which reminds me of some software tools that allow their use for free, but require a license to distribute the contents created with them, even if it's for free. And, in case there was doubt, yes, some technologies do require a license to be used, even for personal use, and no matter how they're "used" (including "artificially creating" files based on that technology, as controversial that could be). It's not clear how that actually works for Atmos (which seems having a slightly different license than other older » | |
| Apr 15 at 21:46 | vote | accept | ChristianOConnor | ||
| Apr 15 at 8:16 | history | answered | Todd Wilcox | CC BY-SA 4.0 |