BrandVideoAI

What each vendor's terms say about commercial use

Rights questions the published terms can settle

A question belongs here when a published clause answers it. Anything that turns on how a court would read that clause is out of scope, and is flagged as a question for a lawyer rather than a grid. As of 2026-09-12.

Reading questions this grid answers, and legal ones it does notWhether a clause exists, which plan it names and when it was read are questions a grid can settle. Whether a clause would hold up in a dispute, or how a regulator would treat a particular campaign, are questions for a lawyer who has seen the contract and the facts.Answered hereLeft to a lawyerDoes a clause existQuoted with its address—Which plan it namesRead from the pricing page—Would it survive a dispute—Depends on facts a page cannot seeIs this campaign allowed—Depends on the campaignSame document, two kinds of question
Fig. 1 The split is not modesty. A grid that answered the right-hand column would be giving advice while pretending to quote.

The line is sharper than it sounds. Whether a vendor's terms grant commercial use on a named plan is a reading question anyone can check. Whether that grant survives a dispute about training data is a legal question this site is not equipped to answer and does not pretend to.

Each answer quotes rather than paraphrases. A paraphrase of a licence is a new licence, and a reader who needs to act on one should be looking at the vendor's words with the address printed underneath.

1The questions

  • Free tiers — Five free tiers here withhold commercial use and five grant it, and the withholdings are established in two quite different ways.
  • Crossing points — Seven of the seventeen vendors name a plan at which commercial use starts, with crossing points from ten dollars a month to thirty a month.
  • Owning vs allowed — Sixteen vendors answer whether output may be used commercially, and eight answer the separate question of what a customer owns in the finished work.
  • What goes in — Four vendors publish a restriction on what may be supplied as an input, and three of the four are about the likeness of a real person.
  • Clean vs licensed — On several vendors the plan that removes the visible mark and the plan that grants commercial use are not the same plan.
  • Silence higher up — One vendor names commercial use on its lowest paid plan and stops repeating it on the two above.
  • No free plan — Two of the seventeen vendors sell plans with no free one, and three publish no plans at all, so the free-tier question has nothing to read on five rows.
  • Where the answer sits — Seven vendors answer the permission question on a plan card.
  • No plan attached — Four vendors grant or assert commercial use without naming a plan, which is the shape a register built around a crossing point handles worst.
  • Not money — Three rows here carry conditions no subscription can satisfy: a defined territory, a ceiling on active users, and a revenue figure in the accounts.
  • What is kept — Two vendors decline ownership of user output and keep broad rights over it.
  • Weights, not plans — Three vendors answer the commercial-use question with a licence file published beside model weights, so there is no plan and no price to read.
  • Free and granted — Four free tiers here sit inside a commercial-use statement and charge for something else instead: privacy, capacity or a clean file.
  • Where it is filed — Where a vendor keeps its commercial-use statement decides whether anybody finds it: a plan page, a licence, a help article or nowhere at all.
  • Consent records — Where a vendor conditions use on a person's consent, the duty and the record sit with the customer, and no supplier can produce either after a complaint.
  • At the limit — Some licences state what follows when a condition stops being met: termination, a request, or nothing at all because no limit was attached.
  • Consequences — Almost no vendor here attaches a consequence to the boundary it draws.
  • Ownership silence — Nine of the seventeen rows say nothing about who owns the output.
  • Marks, not licences — On four rows the free tier's visible limit is a mark rather than a permission, and on some of them the permission is not tiered at all.
  • Where the grid stops — Ten of the seventeen rows answer the crossing-point question with something other than a plan, which is a limit of the grid rather than a gap.
  • Named platforms — One vendor lists paid television, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube advertising by name, telling a planner which line items are affected.
  • Written exclusions — Two vendors tell free users what they may not do, in words.
  • Exclusive or not — Five vendors say who else may hold or use what you generate: a licence back to the vendor, public work others can remix, or plain non-exclusivity.
  • Infringement risk — One vendor describes its models as safe for commercial use.

Where the terms do not answer, the page says so and names the clause a vendor would have to add.

Also on the grid: Products, Fields, Records, Pairs, Words, Learn, Data. What makes a clause quotable is set out on the reading page.

2A generator's account of it

Alongside the terms behind “Questions”, SceneMixer's guides describe the work itself this way:

The terms grant you the output to the extent the law allows, and that includes commercial use.

SceneMixer, What You Get to Keep — “Do I own the copyright in what I generate?” (read 2026-10-13)

The spoken lines and the end card follow your interface language across fifteen dialogue languages, with the cast and setting adapted to that market. The end card falls back to a language it can typeset when a script needs shaping or right-to-left layout.

SceneMixer, AI Ad Video Generator — “Which languages can the ad be in?” (read 2026-10-13)