BrandVideoAI

What each vendor's terms say about commercial use

Two disclaimers, and only one of them takes something back

Hailuo does not claim ownership over content generated on a paid subscription, and the same page takes a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free licence over that content. Wan claims no rights over generated contents and takes nothing. As of 2026-09-22.

Declining ownership, and what happens next in the documentRead alone, both rows say the vendor is not claiming your output. Read in full, one of them also grants itself the right to use, reproduce, modify and display that output on the same page.Two documents, three clausesHosted row, clause oneNo ownership claimed over content generated and downloaded on apaid subscription.Hosted row, clause twoA non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free licence to use,reproduce, modify and display it.Self-hosted rowNo rights claimed over generated contents, subject to complyingwith the licence.Why they differA service holding files needs permission to do ordinary thingswith them. A repository holds nothing.What a confidentiality obligation turns on
Fig. 1 A grid recording only the flattering sentence would skip the operative one.
Readings side by sideFilled where the product publishes something on that point, hollow where its pages do not address it.Readings side by sideHailuo AIWanOwnership claimedOwnership claimed — Hailuo AI: No, for paid-plan downloadsOwnership claimed — Wan: No, without conditionLicence taken backLicence taken back — Hailuo AI: Broad, on the same pageLicence taken back — Wan: None statedCondition on the disclaimerCondition on the disclaimer — Hailuo AI: A paid subscriptionCondition on the disclaimer — Wan: Complying with the licenceWhere it is publishedWhere it is published — Hailuo AI: Subscription service termsWhere it is published — Wan: The repository licence note
Fig. 2 Filled where the product publishes something on that point, hollow where its pages do not address it.
Hailuo AI and Wan on what is owned, side by side. Recorded 2026-09-22.
The questionHailuo AIWan
Ownership claimedNo, for paid-plan downloadsNo, without condition
Licence taken backBroad, on the same pageNone stated
Condition on the disclaimerA paid subscriptionComplying with the licence
Where it is publishedSubscription service termsThe repository licence note

Inclusion rule. Two vendors whose published answers in one column point in different directions, or sit far enough apart that a reader choosing between them would decide differently. Order. The vendor named first in the heading is the one whose wording is quoted first.

1A disclaimer is half of a position

Read alone, both rows say the same encouraging thing: the vendor is not claiming your output. Read in full, one of them also grants itself the right to use, reproduce, modify and display that output.

Those clauses do not contradict each other. A vendor can decline ownership and still take a licence, and a grid that recorded only the first half would be reporting the flattering sentence and skipping the operative one.

2Why a hosted product asks for a licence at all

Storing a file, showing it in a gallery, streaming it back to the account: hosted services need permission to do ordinary things with material they hold. Wording that breadth tightly is difficult, so most of it is written broadly.

The self-hosted row has no equivalent need, because nobody else is holding the file. That is the structural reason this pair differs, and it is worth knowing before reading the clause as an overreach.

3What a confidentiality obligation does to this pair

A studio working under a client NDA has to know what the supplier may do with the material. On the hosted row the answer is a broad licence with no promotional carve-out stated either way; on the self-hosted row there is no supplier in the loop.

That is not an argument for self-hosting, which moves work and responsibility onto the studio. It is the reason the two cells are not interchangeable even though both begin by declining ownership.

4A third set of terms on the same question

How SceneMixer's terms answer what is owned, beside Hailuo AI and Wan. Recorded 2026-10-13.
The questionSceneMixerSource
What the user holdsOutput is the user's to the extent the law allows, royalty-free and commercial use included, and output made with free credits counts as paid forSceneMixer, rights guide
What a production ownsThe guide states that the human-authored layers are what a production owns, naming the script, the selection and arrangement of shots and substantive editsSceneMixer, compliance guide

Inclusion rule. SceneMixer's own published wording on the column this pair was chosen for. Order. The sentence closest to the column first.

Its full row is on the SceneMixer entry.

  • What is owned
    Hailuo does not claim ownership over content you generate and download while on a paid subscription planconditional on a paid planHailuo AI, subscription service terms / recorded 2026-09-22
  • What the user grants back
    Using the services grants Hailuo and its affiliates a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free licence to use, reproduce, modify and display the contentstated on the same pageHailuo AI, subscription service terms / recorded 2026-09-22
  • What is owned
    The repository claims no rights over your generated contents, granting you the freedom to use them provided your usage complies with the licencestated in the same sentence as the licenceWan2.2 repository / recorded 2026-09-22

5Both documents

The first column comes from the subscription service terms at hailuoai.video, read 2026-09-22; the second from the repository licence note at github.com, read 2026-09-22. Each vendor’s full row is on Hailuo AI and Wan, and the column being compared is described on what is owned. A comparison of wording is not legal advice. Other pairs: Leonardo and Stability, Higgsfield and Hailuo.