You may not have heard much about H.264, but you soon will. A standard codec used for video compression, it’s at the centre of numerous disputes, most notably pitting Apple against Adobe.

Launched in May 2003, H.264 is the result of more than 25 companies pulling together patents they own for the compression of video. Apple, Fujitsu, Microsoft, Panasonic, Samsung and Sony are just some of them. Acting under the MPEG-LA consortium, these companies require anyone that uses the it to pay licensing fees – including Canon and Panasonic, which utilises the codec to compress videos shot on its HD-DSLRs. Organisations that distribute the content are also required to buy a licence, which, in some cases, can cost as much as $5m per year.

The licensing agreement between MPEG-LA and third parties calls for the codec to be used for “personal and non-commercial” purposes, as the manuals for products such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark II and Panasonic GH1 state. Any further use, MPEG-LA says, would require a new licence. The terms have led to speculation that MPEG-LA could require professional photographers to pay for the movies they shoot using HD-DSLRs. However, MPEG-LA has moved to reassure them that this isn’t the case.

Under current terms, the organisation says, only manufacturers using the codecs in its products and distributors – such as broadcasters, web browsers and video hosting sites – require a licence. Youtube and Vimeo, which are increasingly used by photographers to publish their videos online, are H.264 licensees. But, they currently do not pay any royalties, as MPEG-LA has imposed a moratorium until 2015 on fees for the distribution of video online.

MPEG-LA says that photographers who use, for personal and for commercial purposes, its codec would not be required to pay for a licence. Canon and Vimeo, for example, have already taken licenses that cover photographers’ usage.

However, photographers and photo agencies developing new distribution models, which includes hosting and selling their videos directly to consumers, could be impacted, as they would have to buy a licence from MPEG-LA. And, while online distribution is free until 2015, MPEG-LA hasn’t ruled out imposing a steep fee when that deadline runs out.