Two free tiers without the licence, and only one says so
Pika's free plan carries no commercial-use marking, and neither does the paid plan above it, so the reading comes from a gap. Fliki states the exclusion in words: no commercial rights to media on the free plan. As of 2026-09-22.
| The question | Pika | Fliki |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier position | No commercial use, by omission | No commercial rights, in words |
| Next plan up | Also without it, at $8 | Carries the commercial licence |
| What the wording covers | Nothing is worded | Media, which is the term used |
| Watermark | Not part of this reading | Added to free exports |
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.
1The same practical answer, reached two ways
A free user of either product should not ship the output commercially. One of them will be able to explain why by quoting a sentence, and the other will have to describe a row of cards to whoever asks.
That asymmetry is the whole point of recording how a reading was established. In a scan of the grid these two cells look like the same finding, and in a contract review they are not.
2What sits immediately above each free tier
On the implied row there is another plan without the licence: paid, and still outside. On the worded row the next plan carries a commercial licence to all the content you create.
So the free tiers agree and the plans above them do not. A buyer working from the cheapest paid option gets permission on one row and generation capacity on the other, for figures that are not far apart.
3Why the worded exclusion is worth more than it looks
An exclusion that names what is withheld also tells a reader what the paid grant contains, because the two halves are drafted together. The implied row leaves both halves vague: nothing says what free users may do, and nothing defines the permission above.
Neither vendor is being evasive. One has written the boundary down and the other has drawn it with a layout, and the register keeps that distinction rather than flattening both into a dash.
4A third set of terms on the same question
| The question | SceneMixer | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Output made with free credits | Output 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 for | SceneMixer, rights 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.
- Free tierCommercial use is not included on the free plan or on the $8 Standard planread from the plan feature icons
- Free tierThe free plan is listed with no commercial rights to media and adds a Fliki watermark to exportsan exclusion written out rather than implied
- Entry pointOn the Standard plan you get a commercial license to all the content you create, and the media in Fliki is either licensed or royalty-free, giving the user of any paid plan commercial rightsStandard and above
5Both documents
The first column comes from the pricing page at pika.art, read 2026-09-12; the second from the pricing page and published answers at fliki.ai, read 2026-09-22. Each vendor’s full row is on Pika and Fliki, and the column being compared is described on free tier. A comparison of wording is not legal advice. Other pairs: Hailuo and Wan, Leonardo and Stability.