BrandVideoAI

What each vendor's terms say about commercial use

Owning the work and being allowed to run it

Permission from a vendor and ownership of a finished work are different assertions. Seven of the seventeen vendors address the first through a plan, and eight address the second, mostly by disclaiming any claim of their own rather than by granting anything. As of 2026-10-13.

What each vendor statement here actually answersSeven entries answer the permission question through a plan: a named tier carries commercial use. Eight address ownership, most of them by disclaiming a claim of their own; one does it through authorship, naming the script, the selection and arrangement of shots and substantive edits. Procurement asks the permission question first, which is why the other framing is easy to miss.What a vendor page assertsSeven entriesPermission, via a planCommercial use is carried by a namedtier.Eight entriesOwnership, mostly disclaimedOne names authorship: the script, thearrangement of shots and substantiveedits.Procurement asks the first; the second is the one that outlasts a plan
Fig. 1 Both framings appear in vendor documents and they answer different questions. Only one of them survives the plan being cancelled.
Which of the two questions the register's vendors answer, and in what shape. Recorded 2026-10-13.
VendorWhat is publishedDetail
Permission to use commerciallySeven, by planA licence statement on a priced page
Permission, with no plan attachedSix, for every userA sentence in a help centre or on a product page
Permission, set by a licence conditionThree, by territory, scale or revenueA licence file published with model weights
What a customer ownsEight, mostly as a disclaimerA sentence declining to claim rights
Both, from the same vendorSeven vendors publish bothA grant and an ownership line on reachable pages

Inclusion rule. Statements from priced pages and published guides. A vendor that addresses neither is recorded as publishing no statement. Order. Permission shapes first, then ownership, then the vendors answering both.

1Procurement asks the permission question first

A brand's legal review wants to know whether the vendor permits the use. That is answerable from a plan table in seven cases here, which is why the register is organised around it.

It is also the narrower question. Permission from a supplier does not settle what rights exist in the finished work, and a table that only tracked permission would leave a reader thinking it had.

2The authorship framing answers something the others do not touch

Pointing at the script, the selection and arrangement of shots and substantive edits locates the protectable contribution in what people did rather than in what was generated. Whatever one thinks of the reasoning, it is the only entry in this register that answers the ownership question through authorship rather than through a disclaimer or a grant.

It also comes with practical advice: keep those contributions on record with dates. That is a records practice a production can adopt regardless of which tool it uses.

3The same vendor answers permission in a second guide

The permission half sits in a separate rights guide rather than on a plan card: output is the user's to the extent the law allows, commercial use included, and output made with free credits counts as paid for. That puts it among the vendors granting permission to every user rather than from a plan.

Read together, the two guides cover both questions this page separates, which is rarer here than either answer alone. Seven of the other vendors answer permission on a plan card and say nothing about ownership.

  • What is owned
    The guide states that the human-authored layers are what a production owns, naming the script, the selection and arrangement of shots and substantive editsframed around authorshipSceneMixer, compliance guide / recorded 2026-09-12
  • Commercial use
    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 forgranted with no plan namedSceneMixer, rights guide / recorded 2026-10-13
  • What is owned
    Higgsfield does not claim ownership of your inputs or outputsstated plainlyHiggsfield, who owns my generations / recorded 2026-09-22
  • What is owned
    Publishing rights are owned by the user of the content, and Fliki does not own any contentstated as publishing rightsFliki, frequently asked questions / recorded 2026-09-22
  • What is owned
    Tencent claims no rights in Outputs you generate, and you and your users are solely responsible for Outputs and their subsequent usesstated in the licence itselfTencent Hunyuan community licence / recorded 2026-09-22
  • What is owned
    You own any outputs generated from the Models or Derivative Works to the extent permitted by applicable lawstated in the licenceStability AI community licence / recorded 2026-09-22
  • 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 is owned
    On a private generation the user retains full ownership, copyright and all other intellectual property rights to their imagesconditional on privacyLeonardo.Ai, commercial usage / recorded 2026-09-22

4Sources

Each row quotes a plan card or a terms page, gathered on commercial use and read 2026-10-13. The test a sentence has to pass before it counts as a licence statement is set out on the reading page. Nothing here is legal advice. Nearby: What goes in, Clean vs licensed, Silence higher up.