This provision defines the scope of permissible use for Nintendo's digital assets and establishes a licensing framework that requires users to obtain authorization before engaging in specified exploitation activities. The restriction protects Nintendo's intellectual property by centralizing control over derivative uses, commercial applications, and distribution.
This clause establishes the operational foundation for Dropbox's service delivery by granting the technical permissions required to perform hosting, data processing, and feature generation. Without this license, Dropbox could not execute the primary functions users rely on, including backup operations and content sharing.
This provision determines whether enterprise customers hold rights in AI-generated outputs they receive from the platform, which is operationally significant for organizations that intend to use or commercialize those outputs in products, services, or internal workflows.
Auth0
· Auth0 Terms of Service
Understanding what intellectual property rights customers and developers retain over their configurations, custom rules, and data is important for businesses that invest significant development resources in Auth0 integrations.
Cohere
· Cohere SaaS Agreement
The agreement establishes that outputs generated by Cohere's models may not automatically carry full intellectual property protections in all jurisdictions, and enterprise customers building products on top of API outputs should be aware of the ownership structure the agreement asserts.
Understanding that Unreal Engine is licensed, not purchased, is fundamental to the agreement: Epic can modify, restrict, or terminate your right to use the engine, and you have no ownership claim to the engine technology embedded in your products.
This clause delineates the ownership structure of the platform and its underlying intellectual property, establishing Duo's retained control over the service architecture, features, and technology. It also defines the scope and limitations of the customer's permitted use of their own data within the service environment.
Neon
· Neon Terms of Service
This provision establishes a clear ownership framework: Neon maintains control over its proprietary platform and technology infrastructure, while customers maintain ownership of their data assets. The license grant limits Neon's authorized use of customer data to operational purposes necessary for service delivery.
This clause defines the ownership structure of the platform and reserves intellectual property control to Google. It establishes the baseline under which all user rights to access and use the platform are granted as limited licenses rather than ownership transfers.
The clause establishes Together AI's ownership structure for the platform and its intellectual property assets, and creates an obligation for users to preserve proprietary notices as a condition of service use. This defines the baseline intellectual property relationship between the service provider and users.
The agreement confirms that customer data ownership remains with the customer, while Atlassian retains intellectual property rights in its products, which is material context for evaluating the scope of the AI data use authorization discussed separately.
Writer
· Writer Terms of Service
This clause establishes Writer's IP ownership over the platform and its outputs, which is relevant to enterprise customers who need to assess ownership of AI-generated content produced through the service. The interaction between this provision and the user content license and AI output provisions should be evaluated by legal teams.
Okta
· Okta Terms of Service
The clause operationalizes Okta's ownership model by establishing boundaries on permitted uses of the platform infrastructure. This framework allows Okta to maintain control over service modifications, derivative works, and competitive replication while defining the scope of the license granted to users.
Perplexity's assertion of ownership over AI-generated outputs is legally significant because it may limit developers' ability to claim ownership over content their applications produce, affecting downstream product rights and licensing strategies.
This clause clarifies the ownership boundary between developer-created content and Epic's underlying technology, establishing that the license is non-transferable and grants no implied rights beyond the scope of the Licensed Technology. This prevents disputes over ownership of derivative technologies or Epic intellectual property.
The terms establish that no IP rights transfer to the licensee and prohibit reverse engineering, which affects organizations that need to audit, customize, or port the software for compliance or operational purposes.
Meta
· Llama API Terms of Service
The complete retention of intellectual property rights by Meta, combined with the revocable license, means that developers have no ownership stake in the platform infrastructure their products depend on and no guaranteed right to continued access.
This provision restricts organizational use of Datadog website content, including documentation screenshots, product descriptions, or marketing materials, in ways that may affect vendor assessment workflows, competitive analysis documentation, or partner materials without obtaining prior written consent.
This provision functions as a contractual gatekeeping mechanism that ties software access authorization to documented acceptance of the complete agreement. It establishes the procedural requirement that users must agree to stated terms before the software becomes functional.
This provision establishes that licensees do not own the model weights they download and self-host, meaning Stability AI can modify or revoke license terms for future versions and enforce IP rights against unauthorized uses.
The provision allocates intellectual property rights to users while limiting OpenAI's liability for output duplication or similarity across user base. This establishes a baseline ownership framework while conditioning commercial use on user verification of originality.
Clarity on ownership of AI-generated outputs is commercially significant for users who intend to commercialize content produced using Stability AI's tools, and the interaction between output ownership and the underlying model IP affects the scope of user rights.
While you receive legal ownership of AI outputs, Jasper places full responsibility on you for any IP infringement claims if the generated content turns out to reproduce third-party copyrighted material, which is a known risk with generative AI systems.
The clause allocates intellectual property rights by preserving user ownership while authorizing Riot Games broad operational rights over user-generated content. The non-exclusive nature permits users to license or use their content elsewhere, while the sublicensable grant enables Riot Games to permit third parties to exercise these rights.
This provision establishes X's operational framework for IP protection, which affects how content ownership, licensing, and infringement claims are processed on the platform. The existence of dedicated IP policies creates procedural pathways for rights holders to report violations and for X to take enforcement action.
This provision establishes the permitted scope of user access and use rights. By restricting the license to personal, non-commercial purposes and prohibiting derivative works and redistribution, Nintendo retains control over commercial exploitation, public display rights, and modifications of its intellectual property and service materials.
Webull
· Webull Customer Agreement
This provision defines the scope of intellectual property protection that Webull maintains over its platform infrastructure and content, establishing the legal boundaries for permissible use of the service's underlying technology and materials.
This provision allocates intellectual property control to Walgreens and establishes the operational boundaries for permissible user interaction with platform content. By restricting unauthorized use, the clause protects Walgreens's proprietary materials and establishes the authorization framework governing content access.
Ford
· Ford Terms and Conditions
The provision defines the ownership structure of site materials and establishes the legal basis for Ford's control over content use and distribution. This clarifies the intellectual property framework governing the service and user interaction with site materials.
Google
· Google Terms of Service
This provision establishes the scope and boundaries of the license grant, defining what uses of Google's software and services are authorized and which activities constitute unauthorized uses. The restriction on reverse-engineering and source code extraction protects Google's proprietary technology from being disassembled or reproduced.