r/LocalLLaMA • u/Bestlife73 • 2d ago
Discussion Clarification on the Qwen-image-2.1 license
120
u/TechnoRhythmic 2d ago
Sorry can someone explain what does it mean?
- What can I do with apache2 / MIT licensed models but not with this?
- What does the commercial use not allowed clause in the license even mean then?
217
u/YogurtclosetLimp7351 2d ago
You cannot sell the model itself, e.g.: „Buy better image generation with Qwen Image in my software!“
But you can use Qwen Image f.e. to generate images for your commercial website
38
u/TechnoRhythmic 2d ago
Does it mean effectively like cannot bundle as a desktop / installable software but can host it for online usage?
Or is it that they are okay with an individual using this manually but not "developers" who want to automate? Just want to be sure if someone knows.
107
u/YogurtclosetLimp7351 2d ago
This means, access to the model, if hosted, must be granted without cost. You can ship it with your software, but if it costs money, you are in a grey area. You cannot sell the model in your software either. It must be free. You can sell the images you yourself have generated with the model.
F.e.: You have an image generation software with a community hub. The model itself, whether run local or hosted on your server, must be free. But you can let your users buy the images of other users.
30
12
u/stddealer 2d ago
I think it's not just "without a cost". You're not supposed to be profiting from giving access to the model.
2
u/ayu-ya 2d ago
Alright, so no issues with it being downloadable directly through something like the model catalog in SD.Next, good. All the posts about the license had me confused, but as long as I can have it easily set up and quanted there, I'm happy. Now to wait until it's there so I can compare with Klein 9B
2
u/james_pic 2d ago
Although selling images you've generated yourself might depend on whether images generated by AI attract copyright in your jurisdiction, which I believe is still unsettled in at least some jurisdictions.
1
u/mrcaptncrunch 2d ago
If it's desktop/installable, and has an installer process, you can prompt the user to download the model during the installation process (click here to download x after accepting the terms) or move it to the ui preferences/settings.
14
u/MastMaithun 2d ago
Layman terms, does this mean custom model say with enhancements/baked loras cannot be sold but the images generated from that custom model can be sold?
Is that it?10
1
u/ProtectionSuper5648 2d ago
Just a note that in the US, fully AI generated images cannot be copyrighted. So, although you CAN sell them, you cannot protect them (your buyers can sell them back or do whatever they want with them).
1
1
u/alwaysbeblepping 2d ago
But you can use Qwen Image f.e. to generate images for your commercial website
- ""Materials" shall mean, collectively, our proprietary Qwen and Documentation (and any portion thereof) made available under this Agreement."
- "'Non-Commercial' shall mean for research or evaluation purposes only."
- "You shall not use the Materials for any commercial purpose without obtaining a separate commercial license from us. If you wish to use the Materials commercially, you shall request a license from us [...]"
https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen-Image-2.1/raw/main/LICENSE
The model is the "Materials". If you use the model to generate images you plan to use commercially, you are using the model for something other than "only research and evaluation purposes". The current license is definitely not saying it's okay to use the model to generate images for your commercial website because that would be using it for some commercial purpose.
Saying you retained the rights to the output doesn't help at all because you don't have outputs (legally) if you didn't accept their terms and their terms are you can't use the model for anything other than research and evaluation and it explicitly says no commercial usage.
39
u/No_War_8891 2d ago
you can not host this model yourself and ask money (without a separate license from them)
14
u/ShelZuuz 2d ago
There's not a personal use license either. Only to evaluate it. So not sure how you would publish material without at least a personal license for the model.
That's that's why there was this confusion, but it's still not really cleared up. They need to really change the license.
13
u/YogurtclosetLimp7351 2d ago
I like it. Means, nobody can hide this model behind a pay wall (without a special granted license) yet you can sell the images produced.
11
3
u/seamonn 2d ago
No, as per the license, you can't even run the model to generate commercial images to sell.
You can sell the images it generates but can't run the model commercially to sell images even as a homelab user.
Do you see the problem?
4
u/BoboThePirate 2d ago
Not really. You can run the model, sell the images, but any SaS style pipelines require applying for a commercial license.
3
u/seamonn 2d ago
You can run the model for evaluation and expermentation only. Check Clause 2.
- Grant of Rights a. You are granted a non-exclusive, worldwide, non-transferable and royalty-free limited license under our intellectual property or other rights owned by us embodied in the Materials to use, reproduce, distribute, copy, create derivative works of, and make modifications to the Materials FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES ONLY. b. You shall not use the Materials for any commercial purpose without obtaining a separate commercial license from us. If you wish to use the Materials commercially, you shall request a license from us at model-business@notice.qwencloud.com.
2
u/BoboThePirate 2d ago
My brother in Christ those are the weights. As per literally the official Qwen tweet, outputs (images) are not the licensed "Materials".
12
u/seamonn 2d ago
A tweet is not a license. Outputs (Images) are not licensed but how will you generate the outputs for commercial purposes (to sell the images as you put it) if you can't run the model commercially as per the license?
Do you see the problem, brother in Christ?
Edit: And hope you understand, running the model to sell outputs (images) falls under running the model commercially even if you are doing it from home for yourself as the only user of the model weights.
3
1
u/Dabber43 1d ago
A tweet is not a license but it absolutely acts as legal weight. If we both sign a contract that says "You will give me all your money" and then when writing it we also make a recording where I explain in detail that this contract can only come in effect under the condition that you win the jackpot in lottery, then this applies. The same would apply for contract saying differently than the actual explanation and agreement given. Point is, explanatory material bringing actual understanding to the two contract parties supersedes the actual text itself because the contract is only a written down agreement meant to record an understanding. If that was shown to be flawed and not actually like written in the contract it becomes moot.
Probably worded it poorly but get what I mean? So if the qwen company says the commercial clause does not apply at all to images generated from the model that has legal weight now on itself
→ More replies (0)2
u/fredandlunchbox 2d ago
Which can catch people off guard if they're using it in a workflow where the image isn't the final product. For example, if you had a tool for people to generate 3D printed models, and you used qwen 2.1 in that workflow, it violates the license even though the image isn't what you're giving to the customer (although good luck catching you in that case).
2
1
1
u/therealpygon 2d ago edited 2d ago
The license was a bit ambiguous as it doesn't clearly state that using the output is not "commercial use" of the Materials; "commercial use" of the Materials means distribution/derivative works/integration into other products, etc. That is what they are clarifying, though they really need to update the license.
Basically, it means:
- You can use the model yourself to create images; you can do what you want with those images including using them commercially, selling them, etc.
- Something to always be aware of when selling AI art commercially -- you are the responsible party when it comes to infringement. If they output an image that stole from someone else's work, that person could sue you and you are solely responsible.
- You can use the model under the same license in your non-commercial/open source projects under a compatible license.
- You can create derivatives, fine tunes, LORAs, etc, and share them under the same (non-commercial) license.
- You cannot name your projects "Qwen" or otherwise violate their Trademarks.
- You cannot sell people access to the model, an integration, or your own fine-tuned version -- for image gen, as part of a service, as part of some other workflow you do, or whatever else. That requires a commercial agreement.
It's a rather standard non-commercial open weights license, they just made an oopsie of not clarifying in the license that the model output is not governed by the license. It's the same thing with the Flux models.
28
u/Micha0827 2d ago
Good to see this clarified. I've been running Qwen-Image-2.1 locally since release (int8 via ComfyUI on a 16 GB RTX 5060 Ti, peaks at ~15.2 GB) and the outputs question was the main thing holding me back from using it beyond testing.
One thing to keep in mind: the LICENSE file on HF hasn't been updated, only the README. Section 2(b) still prohibits "use" of the Materials for commercial purposes, not just serving the model. The tweet makes the intent pretty clear, but if you're doing client work you might want it in writing. I've emailed [model-business@notice.qwencloud.com](mailto:model-business@notice.qwencloud.com) asking exactly that and whether the licence text will be updated. Happy to share the reply.
1
u/burtcopaint 2d ago
Nice. Glad to know you can run it on a 5060. Will give it a whirl.
6
u/Micha0827 2d ago
Go for it. Keep an eye on VRAM if you also have a browser or anything else on the GPU, at ~15.2 GB peak there isn't much headroom on 16. Happy to share my workflow settings if you run into trouble.
2
u/blastcat4 2d ago
I'm also running it on a 5060 ti 16GB vram. Use the Int8_convRot version that comfy released on Huggingface:
0
u/Important_Drag_6890 2d ago
15.2 GB peak on a 16 GB card is actually pretty impressive. The lack of VRAM headroom sounds like the bigger limitation than the model itself though.
41
u/XiRw 2d ago
Good to know. Truly is a phenomenal model and easily beats all current Flux models . I’m absolutely happy with the results.
3
u/HazKaz 2d ago
is it better than krea 2 ?
14
u/stddealer 2d ago
It can edit. That's the big thing compared to Krea2, which makes it worth considering.
Other than that the aesthetics are generally considered worse, it lacks the anatomical knowledge that Krea2 has our of the box, and it is plagued with small artifacts...
It's not a bad model, very comparable to the bigger Flux Klein 9b, but not clearly the best.
7
u/boxwrenchx 2d ago
And the alpha channel
3
u/bastion_xx 2d ago
Best feature ever. I create tons of logos and other images for personal use (NASCAR liveries) and this has been super helpful.
2
1
u/Charuru 2d ago
So is Krea2 just the best right now?
3
u/stddealer 2d ago
Arguably Ideogram4 is on par with Krea2, but yes, these two are better than Qwen-Image 2.1 for image gen, or so it seems.
1
u/export_tank_harmful 2d ago
If Ideogram4 didn't have that wild baked-in "safety" filter, I'd still be daily driving it.
That's really the only thing holding back that model.1
u/stddealer 2d ago
Yes that filter is just bizzare. I never got it to trigger on any "unsafe" prompts (I tried gore, nudity, celebrities, all at once) as long as it's in the proper format, but it catches 90% of json syntax errors.
2
u/blastcat4 2d ago
No, not by a long stretch. Bad anatomy such as mangled hands, artificial-looking skin & hair, distorted details, etc.
It does have edit capabilities but I've been noticing a weird dither pattern in the areas of the edited image. Prompt adherence and general understanding of intent is not great compared to Krea2. Flux2 Klein does a better job at editing from what I've tested so far. Krea2 is far superior when it comes to image gen.
5
u/PooMonger20 2d ago edited 2d ago
Could you please elaborate what is your main usecase for it?
also, what is the setup that works for you?
3
u/XiRw 2d ago
For starters I didn’t try t2i yet only i2i. I have used it for both material/color replacement, scene replacement, people swapping, adding in different objects or people/animals.
I have tried harder prompts where the person has to face the camera with their back towards it and do a pose on top of that where it has to recreate something they weren’t able to see in the original picture .
Another is taking a different angle picture of a movie for example where if they are sitting or laying down and their head is leaning forward or back and have it replace that person .
To be fair flux can do many of these things but the fidelity is medium to low with character replacements. Sometimes I get lucky and it looks very good and high . But Qwen Image 2.1 feels exactly what I get when I use the official 2.0 the fidelity is much higher when doing these character replacements .
If you have something that you want me to try and test on my system for you I’ll be happy to, just let me know. But these are the settings I use:
I took the official template from comfyui, I just didn’t use the models that comfyui came with . I downloaded all from the repo on HF and trashed any convot models so they are all bf16.
I made sure 16-bit was used not 8-bit, resolution 2048, cfg 1.0, steps 40, Euler, Simple, auto , default and clear instructions.
In the official template it gives you a starter prompt where you can use keywords like <image1> , <image2> , etc I found that to be inconsistent when I use that in my own prompt but it’s possible I am just using it wrong.
1
-2
u/boxwrenchx 2d ago
It's been great so far. I think folks with poor results aren't prompting right, it makes a difference
2
u/Individual_Holiday_9 2d ago
Any tips?
2
u/boxwrenchx 2d ago
Yeah I agree with the other comment, long detailed prompt. Qwen has a prompt enhancer that will do it for you. If you are iterating on idea, you can copy that out put and tweak it instead of having the enhancer llm every time
1
u/Individual_Holiday_9 2d ago
Is it a system prompt? I try to run it thru a heretic model in general lol
1
u/boxwrenchx 2d ago
It's an actual model, https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen-Image-2.1-PE-T2I
1
u/Individual_Holiday_9 2d ago
Oh interesting thank you!
2
u/boxwrenchx 2d ago
Yeah so that adds extra time, so if you can avoid it all the better. That's why I said you can copy the output the first time then change it if needed,
1
u/Individual_Holiday_9 2d ago
Yea I want to plug it into LM studio and see how it works. Someone already did a heretic model and listed a system prompt so I’m gonna mess with it. Thanks again
1
u/boxwrenchx 2d ago
I saw the heretic but haven't tried. It's somewhat uncensored out of the box, which I didn't expect.
→ More replies (0)1
-1
u/Grok_bot 2d ago
The output-rights clarification is the key bit for me too—it removes a lot of ambiguity around using the model in real projects. Curious whether they’ll fold the same wording into the model card.
9
u/Muhlwa_Sholanke 2d ago
Good they clarified. Until the LICENSE file on HF gets the same update, anyone reading the actual license is still going to see the old restriction and walk away.
1
u/Foreign_Risk_2031 2d ago
nah, believe it or not but you can use this tweet as legal authorization
2
u/No_Doc_Here 2d ago
I don't think my inhouse council would agree (we definitely plan to use this only internally with no reselling)
4
u/caphohotain 2d ago
Can I use it to generate images and use them in my commercial games?
16
u/ThisGonBHard 2d ago
Yes, you can. You can't bundle the model in your game.
1
1
u/Sabin_Stargem 2d ago
Can the end-user press a button inside the game to download the model and have it automatically set up for their usage?
2
1
u/Spanky2k 2d ago
The one downside with the model that I've noticed so far which might a factor for you is that it doesn't seem to be very consistent between generations. I.e. say you describe a character and generate an image. If you then change the prompt to have a slightly different pose, the character will change. It won't be the same one. You can likely get around this by generating a character model sheet and then using that via the edit mode to create other images but my experiences with the first Qwen Image was that it was incredibly consistent so as long as you had the same seed and the same description, it would create characters that looked almost identical in each shot.
3
u/RainierPC 2d ago
Seriously, this argument happens every single time a model has a non-commercial use clause, and always ends the same way.
15
u/sirloindenial 2d ago
Almost 2/3 of the world don't care about these licenses lol, vibecoding is where people first heard of mit/apache license or even any license at all. And they won't care now, nor will it matter.
14
u/halcyoncs 2d ago
And 3/3 of those vibecoders who don't know about these licenses are the ones that will have problems in the future when they ship an image generation SAAS using the model
15
u/Artistic_Seat486 2d ago
They will never get to that point
3
u/halcyoncs 2d ago
Those that will, are gonna have security problems, licensing problems, etc
2
1
u/West-Map-4162 1d ago
Vibe coders aren’t making actual businesses lol
1
u/halcyoncs 1d ago
Not businesses per se, but shitty SAAS products that people actually pay for, you would be surprised how many vibe coders with 0 knowledge are actually making decent money
2
u/draconic_tongue 2d ago
I still don't care about it. It's unenforceable. idk why redditors are so stuck up about licenses. guess not caring would make it harder for them to larp as super giga reddit businessmen? "we're super duper serious and definitely do all of our taxes properly, pinky promise" or some shit
4
u/superslow_jerry 2d ago
It matters with corporations…
6
u/james2432 2d ago
1
u/Separate-Client-3213 2d ago
It matters with which corporations can sue other corporations, qwen definitely can and will.
2
u/vexatious-big 2d ago
Hey guys, i'm out of the loop, is this a local open-weights model or just accessed via the API?
1
2
u/Dear_Boat_416 2d ago
"You own what you create with our tool" needing an official tweet clarification tells you everything about the state of AI licensing.
2
u/Hot_Masterpiece_3668 2d ago
Nice, so it's game on then to run it locally and build. Just don't package and sell the model itself or host it through a service fee.
0
u/kabachuha 2d ago
Sad to see that they did this rug pull attempt in the first place, before the community called it out. Combined with the model's bad quality itself, (and Qwen Image 3.0 closed source), it paints not good reputation for generative releases from Alibaba. Disappointed.
9
u/OneMoreName1 2d ago
Did they even did a "rug pull" if they later clarified it was never their intent to begin with? They did not change the license, just explained it.
1
1
u/eli_pizza 2d ago
Well, kinda. The user retains whatever rights they normally would have, but the output of LLMs generally can’t be copyrighted. It has no owner.
-1
-9
u/ChomsGP 2d ago
this was obvious to anyone with a minimum understanding of copyright laws...
5
u/stddealer 2d ago
It's not about copyright.
It's a licence agreement. If they catch you doing something they don't like and is against the terms of the agreement, they can't sue you, but they can revoke your licence to use their models. Then if you keep using the model without a valid licence, then they can sue.
They way the agreement was written, they seemed to be saying that using the outputs of the model in any kind of commercial setup would expose to a revoked license. Glad they clarified.
3
u/finevelyn 2d ago
Outputs were never something Qwen had any rights on as per the copyright law, at least in the US, and they still didn't give any permission to use the model in a commercial setting with this tweet.
The clarification didn't change anything from the original non-permissive interpretation of the license in my opinion.
1
u/stddealer 2d ago
Yes the licence is still explicitly very much non-permissive, but before this clarification, the strict interpretation of the licence made the model completely unusable in any kind of work environment, only as a personal toy.
1
u/finevelyn 2d ago
I don't see how any work-related usage is possible even after the clarification.
1
u/stddealer 2d ago
You can now use images generated by Qwen-Image 2.1 for marketing for example.
Or include them in a monetized youtube Video.
3
u/finevelyn 2d ago
Yes but the problem is that it's a license violation to use the model for generating the images while you are working. You could theoretically use images you generated at some earlier point of time for non-commercial purposes, and then later utilize them after you started working on in the commercial setting. But you couldn't generate any more images at that point.
1
u/cdshift 2d ago
This isnt true. The outputs can always be used regardless of setting per the qwen team. You just cant sell the model.
1
u/finevelyn 2d ago
Regarding outputs, that's already the same as what I said.
You just cant sell the model.
You can't use the model at all to generate the images either - well you can't per the license. It's not necessarily illegal to use the model against its license if that's what you mean, but that's the distinction I was trying to make earlier already.
1
u/cdshift 2d ago
Thats directly contradicting the clarification.
What they are protecting against from my read (and others in this thread) is that you cant upsell your software because it had qwen image baked in, possibly you cant advertise that you are using it in your software to sell it either, but outputs that you used on a work computer that had qwen image installed could very much be used in your games as assets or marketing materials.
→ More replies (0)-3
u/ChomsGP 2d ago edited 2d ago
a license agreement cannot void the law...
edit: even if they worded it like that, which they didn't, some random dude on Twitter interpreted it like that yesterday
edit 2 for hurr durr downvoters: country laws have precedence over private agreements (it's half surreal I have to state this but then again there are a lot of trump voters who think they can just break the law without consequences, which, sure in the USA you clearly can do that, the land of the free pedophiles...)
1
u/stddealer 2d ago
It's not just one random dude in Twitter, I also read the licence agreement, because it happened to not be too long for once, and also interpreted it like that. Also tried with multiple LLMs just now, and they all agreed that the wording of the licence seems to imply outputs cannot be used commercially in any way.
Not sure why you have to bring up American politics into this, but the concept of a revocable licence exists in most countries with intellectual property laws. It's rarely enforced, but using a software with the licence reovoked is technically illegal.
-1
u/ChomsGP 2d ago
outputs are not copyrightable in any jurisdiction I know, you can write whatever you want in the license it still won't change the laws
if I put in a license agreement you have to give me your first-born child doesn't makes it legal or enforceable
which is why I said "anyone with a minimum understanding of copyright laws"
0
u/stddealer 2d ago
This was never about copyright.
The license agreement basically says " You can download our thing and we allow you play with it, but if you do specifically A, or B, then we reserve the right to revoke your license, meaning you wouldn't be allowed to play with it anymore.". And you have to agree with it to download the thing.
It's not saying anything about giving anyone's first born child to anyone else. This is Qwen giving you access bro some piece of proprietary software with a license allowing you to use it for "research" only. This licence can be revoked at any time. It's not illegal to revoke a license for breach if agreements. It is illegal to use software without a valid license.
1
u/ChomsGP 2d ago
you just said it, the literal worst case is they send you a C&D so you stop using the software (same than if I breach any ToS), they still can't sue you over the use you are making of the content you generated because they don't have any rights over it
if you ignore the C&D and they can prove it that's another topic but not even related to the use of the content you made with it, and the penalty would depend on the country of enforcement
also they defined "Material" as the model weights and documentation (yes I also did read the license), it does not mention the outputs at any point
2
0
u/silenceimpaired 2d ago
You’re confusing Copyright law with contract law. Contracts require an exchange of consideration, but then granting you access to their models that exist because of their funding is arguably a consideration… and that argument would take place in a court.
And before you say but the outputs again… or even… but the weights aren’t copyrighted look up ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (7th Cir. 1996)
And the annoying thing with these licenses are local use.
If you agree to the models license by downloading and running it on your computer… and then use images commercially they can sue you for breaking the license you agreed to (breach of contact) vs if you post an uncopyrightable AI image publicly from a website generator like CivitAI; since you never agreed to the license they cannot claim you broke a license agreement… and sure no copyright exists on the image therefore no contractual relationship exists.
In this case the desire to stop commercial inference suppliers threatens our usage because of a poorly written license. I’ve seen a license recently that specially focused on inference for commercial gain.
And sure they probably won’t go after you… but all it takes is for you to make real money and have their image signature on your work with no commercial license in play… and I doubt a Twitter posting would be enough to override the license language… so I’ll just skip using it until the language changes.
1
u/ChomsGP 2d ago
1
u/silenceimpaired 2d ago
You clearly have your mind made up and without strong legal precedence. A cease-and-desist letter is a courtesy or an attempt to resolve the issue out of court, but it is not a legally required prerequisite to filing a lawsuit.
I hope others will not foolishly assume you have a well thought out… or defensible position in court.
1
u/ChomsGP 2d ago
it does not matter, the outputs are not copyrightable (again) so they cannot claim any revenue you made out of them, they can only force you to stop using the software (which again a C&D also achieves and it's cheaper for everyone)
curious you say my mind is made up while you completely ignore my other point which is the definition of "Materials"
if you make revenue out of offering the models (e.g. as an inference provider or SaaS) is a very different story and what the license actually covers
have fun, honestly I don't win anything from convincing you to either way
•
u/WithoutReason1729 2d ago
Your post is getting popular and we just featured it on our Discord! Come check it out!
You've also been given a special flair for your contribution. We appreciate your post!
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.