BrandVideoAI

What each vendor's terms say about commercial use

Likeness, which is not the same question as copyright

Likeness rights belong to the person depicted, not to whoever took the photograph. Clearing copyright in an image says nothing about whether the person in it agreed to appear, and the two claims are brought by different people. As of 2026-09-22.

Two claims over one frame, from two directionsCopyright in a photograph belongs to whoever took it. Rights in an appearance belong to the person depicted. Clearing one does nothing for the other, and a generated face can raise the second alone.Who holds what, over the same faceOnly the photographerHoldscopyright in the image, a licence tosell itBoth listsBoth canobject to a published clipOnly the person depictedHoldsrights in their appearance, theconsent questionA generated resemblance raises the second claim with no input to clear
Fig. 1 Buying a stock image clears the photographer's claim and not the person's.
Two claims that arrive from two directions, over the same frame. Recorded 2026-09-22.
QuestionWhat the phrase answers
Copyright in a photographHeld by the photographer or their licensee
Rights in the appearanceHeld by the person depicted
Clearing oneDoes nothing for the other
A generated face resembling somebodyRaises the second question without the first

Inclusion rule. Phrases that appear in more than one vendor's permissions documents and that change what a sentence means. A phrase used by a single vendor in a single clause is described on that vendor's own page instead. Order. Reading order: where you meet it, then what it settles, then what it does not.

1A licensed photograph is only half cleared

Buying a stock image clears the photographer's claim. The model release, if there is one, clears the person's, and the scope of that release is usually narrower than the licence sitting beside it.

Generated video makes this sharper, because a likeness can be produced without any photograph being licensed at all. The second question arrives on its own, and no copyright clearance answers it.

2Resemblance without a source

A prompt describing a person can produce something recognisable, and recognisability is what the claim turns on. There is no input to clear and no chain of licences to point at, which is why several documents in this subject refuse the input category instead.

That refusal removes a legitimate use as well as a risk: a presenter who looks like a named person, with that person's agreement, is a normal request that cannot be met.

3What to record, and what not to rely on

Record the source of every face in a deliverable, and a release for each identifiable person. Do not rely on a supplier's grant, which is about the supplier's own claims and not about anybody depicted.

Where a document places the duty on the customer, that is the honest allocation: only the customer knows who is in the frame and what they agreed to.

4A generator's account of it

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

The product image is always redrawn from your original photo so it stays your product.

SceneMixer, Ad Projects and Remake Projects: What Looks Different in the Wizard and the Editor, and Why — “Can I redraw the product from text?” (read 2026-10-13)

The final cut ends on an end card: your main image plus four lines — Brand, Product name, Tagline, Call to action. The first two are read from your photo and your brief; the tagline and call to action are written with the script.

SceneMixer, The End Card (read 2026-10-13)

5Where the sourced wording is

A word page, not an entry in the register: nothing above is attributed to any vendor and nothing above is legal advice. The quoted clauses are on commercial use, the column this phrase turns up in is input restriction, and the reading rules are on the reading page. Next words: Stock avatar, Custom avatar, Indemnity.