top of page
The Price of Free: CapCut's New Terms of Service Raise Big Questions for Creators

The Price of Free: CapCut's New Terms of Service Raise Big Questions for Creators

8 July 2025

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Smartphone displaying CapCut logo on screen, placed on a wooden surface. Screen is white with black text, creating a minimalist look.

Most people never read the terms of service. They're the digital equivalent of the small print on a credit card offer. Dry. Dense. Usually harmless. But every now and then, one of those boxes you tick without thinking hides something that matters.


CapCut, the hugely popular video editing app owned by ByteDance, quietly updated its terms of service in June. The new terms haven’t radically changed in structure, but their language has sparked widespread concern. Creators, influencers, journalists and casual users are now realising the cost of convenience might be their content, their voice, and even their face.


So what changed? And why does it matter?


CapCut Now Has the Right to Use Your Content, Forever

At the heart of the controversy is CapCut’s licence agreement. When you upload a video to their platform, even as a private draft, you are granting ByteDance and its affiliates a worldwide, royalty-free, irrevocable and perpetual right to use, edit, reproduce, distribute and monetise your content. This includes your username, your voice, and your likeness.

In short, they can do what they like with your video. Forever. And you cannot revoke that permission.


Critically, this applies not just to content published publicly but also to drafts or private videos stored in CapCut’s cloud. Even if you delete the file or your account, the licence remains in place. You still technically own your content, but they own the rights to do whatever they want with it.


This has understandably caused alarm among creators. A vlog you filmed for friends, a marketing draft, or a clip of your child dancing in the living room could, in theory, be used in an advert, a training dataset, or promotional material with no payment or warning.


The Growing Frustration with ‘Freemium’

Beyond the terms themselves, CapCut has also come under fire for its monetisation strategy. Features that were once free, like slow motion effects, watermark-free exports and audio extraction, are now locked behind a Pro subscription.


Reddit forums are filled with posts from frustrated users. One wrote, "You literally cannot do anything on it anymore, everything requires a subscription #boycott_capcut." Others have vented about automatic updates that break their workflows or remove tools they relied on.

CapCut was once the darling of quick, quality video editing. Now, many feel it has shifted from a useful free tool to a pay-to-play model without warning. That change has made some users feel as though they were tricked into building their content libraries on a platform that no longer respects their creative control.


Who Is Most Affected?

The impact is not the same for everyone. Here are three groups most at risk:


1. Content Creators and InfluencersAnyone uploading original content to CapCut risks losing control over how that content is used. That includes voiceovers, music, video clips and personal footage. A brand image carefully curated over years could be diluted or repurposed without input or approval.


2. Journalists and Documentary FilmmakersThose working with sensitive material or vulnerable subjects may be unknowingly placing source material into the hands of a third party. CapCut’s terms allow them to retain copies of content and distribute them freely. For journalists working under embargo or dealing with whistle-blowers, this is a serious threat to trust and ethics.


3. Small Businesses and CharitiesMany organisations use CapCut to produce promotional videos, explainers, and behind-the-scenes content. If those assets are uploaded to CapCut’s servers, they may be reused, reshaped or monetised elsewhere. This undermines brand control and could expose sensitive internal material.


Safer Alternatives for Creators

Dark computer screen with Adobe Premiere Pro icon. Visible text: Home, Sync Settings, Recent. Sparse light creates a focused, calm mood.

If you are reconsidering your use of CapCut, here are some alternatives that offer more transparency or control:

  • DaVinci Resolve: A professional-grade editor with a free version offering extensive features and no cloud tie-ins.

  • Adobe Premiere Pro: Paid, but widely trusted and industry standard.

  • Final Cut Pro: Ideal for Mac users who want full control over local files.

  • VN Video Editor: A popular mobile alternative with fewer strings attached.

  • Openshot: A free, open-source tool for those who prefer editing offline.

  • Shotcut: Another open-source video editor with advanced features and no automatic cloud storage.


A Wider Trend of Terms That Take More Than They Give

CapCut is not alone. Increasingly, apps and platforms are granting themselves sweeping rights over user-generated content. TikTok, also owned by ByteDance, includes similar language in its terms. Meta’s platforms have long included provisions that allow for the reuse and promotion of posted material. Even Zoom caused controversy in 2023 after suggesting it could use video calls to train AI.


These trends suggest a growing normalisation of terms that put user control second to corporate interest. The technology is free, but your content becomes the price.


The Lesson? Read Before You Click

We live in an age where convenience and creativity are closely tied to platforms we do not control. CapCut’s updated terms of service are not necessarily unusual—but they should be a wake-up call. If you value your content, your privacy, or your brand, it may be time to check those terms before clicking ‘Accept’.


Because in the world of digital creation, what’s yours might not stay yours for long.

Current Most Read

WWE Night of Champions 2025: Mixed Reactions, Major Twists, and Cultural Tensions in Saudi Arabia
The Bezos Wedding in Venice Is a Grotesque Monument to Billionaire Decadence
Have We Become Too Reliant on AI?

6 British Products That Are Surprisingly Banned in Other Countries (Here’s Why)

  • Writer: Connor Banks
    Connor Banks
  • Jun 26
  • 3 min read

From haggis and Marmite to Kinder Eggs, there are everyday British staples that raise eyebrows (and red tape) overseas. Some of these familiar items are considered risky, unhealthy, or just plain illegal in countries like the USA and Canada, even though they’re part of everyday life in the UK.


Here are six things that are completely normal in Britain — but are either banned, heavily restricted, or controversial abroad.


1. Haggis – Off the Menu in the USA

A brown haggis on a dark plate with a spoon resting beside it on a woven mat. Two glasses with amber liquid in the blurred background.

Haggis may be divisive, but for many Scots (and those who appreciate a bit of tradition), it’s part of the national identity. Made from minced sheep offal — including lungs, which is the sticking point here — haggis has been banned in the US since 1971.


The US Department of Agriculture considers sheep lungs unsafe due to the potential risk of contamination during slaughter. Even though millions of people in the UK eat it without issue, American regulations err on the side of caution. So if you're wondering, "Can you bring haggis into the US?" The answer is no.


2. Kinder Surprise – A No-Go in the States

Kinder Surprise egg leaning against a white candle on a beige surface. Soft focus background with neutral tones.

Yes, really. Those little chocolate eggs with the plastic toy inside are illegal in the US. According to FDA regulations, food products cannot contain non-edible embedded objects, due to choking hazards for children.


While they’ve got a separate version called Kinder Joy (which splits the toy and chocolate into two compartments), it lacks the charm of the original. So if you're searching "Why are Kinder Eggs banned in the US?" It's all about safety laws.


3. Raw Milk – A Legal Grey Area Abroad

Cow with yellow ear tags in field, looking at camera under a clear blue sky with scattered white clouds. Bright, calm setting.

In Britain, raw (or unpasteurised) milk is a niche but legal product, often sold at farm shops or directly from dairies. It’s appreciated for its richness and flavour, and seen by some as a more "natural" option.


However, in many US states, Canada, and other countries, raw milk is either banned or tightly regulated. Public health authorities warn about the risks of bacterial contamination, including Listeria, E. coli, and Salmonella.


So while it’s legal and available in the UK under certain conditions, in the US, it’s largely treated as a public health risk.


4. Marmite – Once Banned in Denmark

Marmite jar with yellow lid labeled "Elton John Limited Edition" on patterned surface, spotlighted against a dark background.

Marmite is a uniquely British staple. But in Denmark, it was temporarily removed from shelves in 2011 because of its added vitamins and minerals, which hadn’t been pre-approved under Danish food regulations.


It wasn’t banned due to any direct health risk; it simply didn’t meet bureaucratic requirements. So, "Is Marmite banned in Denmark?" Technically, it was, though it can now be found in limited quantities.


5. Irn-Bru (Original Recipe) – Banned in Canada

IRN-BRU logo in bold white letters on blue, featuring an orange figure with the text "Original and Best" below.

Scotland’s iconic bright-orange soft drink, Irn-Bru, used to contain a synthetic dye called Ponceau 4R (E124). While permitted in the UK, it’s banned in Canada due to concerns about hyperactivity in children and allergic reactions.


Though Irn-Bru has since been reformulated, the original recipe remains banned. So if you’re Googling "Is Irn-Bru banned in Canada?" — the answer is yes, at least in its original form.


6. Toys Inside Food – Not Allowed in the USA

Cute pink-eared figure sits atop a creamy dessert in a hand. Urban street with soft lights in the blurry background. Playful mood.

The US really doesn’t like surprises in its food, especially if they’re small plastic toys. Beyond Kinder Surprise eggs, any food product that contains a hidden non-edible object is considered a choking hazard and banned by the FDA.


So even if something passes UK and EU safety regulations, in America it’s a no-go. That includes novelty sweets or promotional snacks with toys hidden inside.



It’s interesting how the same everyday product can be perfectly acceptable in one country and completely banned in another. Whether it’s due to food safety concerns, bureaucratic red tape, or simply different cultural norms, these bans show just how subjective "safe" can be.


So if you're travelling or posting a parcel abroad, it’s worth double-checking what’s allowed. That jar of Marmite or humble Kinder egg might just be contraband where you’re headed.

bottom of page