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

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

Britain by the Numbers: The Weird and Wonderful Stats That Make the UK Unique

WWE Night of Champions 2025: Mixed Reactions, Major Twists, and Cultural Tensions in Saudi Arabia

Paul Francis
Jun 30
3 min read

WWE Night of Champions Logo

WWE returned to Saudi Arabia this weekend with its latest premium live event, Night of Champions 2025, hosted in Riyadh’s King Saud University Stadium. The show promised high drama, championship clashes, and headline-grabbing moments. While it delivered on spectacle, it also exposed lingering challenges surrounding fan engagement and cultural tension, especially regarding the women’s division.

Night of Champions Major Matches and Talking Points

The card was packed with some of the biggest names in the company, with matches designed to shift ongoing narratives ahead of SummerSlam.

John Cena vs CM Punk headlined the evening in a match that ended in chaos. Interference from several factions, a surprise Money in the Bank cash-in attempt, and Cena's ambiguous tactics left fans split between awe and confusion. The match ended without a decisive victory, with WWE officials reportedly pleased by the “buzz” but fans critical of the overbooking.
Cody Rhodes triumphed in the King of the Ring final against Randy Orton. His increasingly aggressive in-ring style led some fans to speculate about a heel turn. The win sets Rhodes up for a title shot at SummerSlam, though many are watching for a deeper shift in his character.
Jacob Fatu lost the United States Championship to Solo Sikoa in a controversial finish. Tonga Loa and Tala Tonga interfered, leading to an unexpected pinfall. Online forums lit up with anger, accusing WWE of undermining Fatu’s momentum for shock value.
On the women's side, Rhea Ripley retained her title against Raquel Rodriguez in a hard-hitting contest. Though well-received by those watching from home, the live crowd remained subdued, reigniting long-standing concerns over how women’s matches are received in the region.

Fan Reaction: Online Applause and Frustration

As with many recent WWE events, fan response was sharply divided. Social media praised the storytelling depth in Cena and Punk’s encounter, though many viewers said the finish was “cluttered” and “needlessly complicated.” Others celebrated Rhodes’ rise but worried that Orton was reduced to a stepping stone.

One point of near-universal disapproval was Jacob Fatu’s loss. Described by fans as “a waste of build-up,” the match has been seen as a misstep in what was otherwise an impressive run for Fatu.

Meanwhile, CM Punk received a cool reception in the arena. Having previously made negative comments about Saudi Arabia in a 2020 tweet, Punk addressed the crowd during the kickoff show with a public apology. The reaction remained mixed, with some booing and others remaining silent.

The Ongoing Cultural Challenge for WWE’s Female Performers

Despite WWE’s efforts to normalise women’s matches in Saudi Arabia, cultural friction remains. Female athletes must adhere to strict dress codes, wearing full-length body gear and avoiding any revealing attire. While this ensures their participation is permitted, it restricts performance style and character presentation.

Crowd reactions also reflect a clear divide. While international fans celebrate the inclusion of women on the card, Saudi audiences often respond with polite silence rather than vocal support. This creates a disjointed atmosphere, with emotional crowd energy that is vital to wrestling performance largely absent.

The Saudi General Entertainment Authority continues to place restrictions on promotional content involving female wrestlers, and while their inclusion is now standard practice, full acceptance remains a work in progress.

Saudi Arabia’s broader cultural landscape, deeply rooted in conservative interpretations of Islamic principles, continues to influence how entertainment is shaped. WWE, balancing business ambitions with progressive values, finds itself walking a diplomatic tightrope.

Looking Ahead: SummerSlam and Beyond

The next major stop for WWE is SummerSlam 2025, where many of the Night of Champions storylines will culminate. Rhodes is set to challenge for the Undisputed Universal Title, and the unresolved issues between Cena and Punk suggest a rematch may be on the horizon.

In the women’s division, Rhea Ripley’s dominance looks set to continue, though fans are calling for her to face fresher opponents. Questions also linger over whether Saudi Arabia will remain a regular host of PLEs given the ongoing backlash around cultural constraints.

Night of Champions 2025 provided unforgettable moments but not without controversy. The spectacle remains strong, and WWE’s global ambitions are evident. Yet, the reaction to this event proves that wrestling fans expect more than shock finishes and celebrity matches. They want coherence, fairness, and authentic representation, even when the show takes place under very different cultural conditions.

As WWE looks ahead, it must ask itself whether it is moving towards inclusivity or simply adapting to its environment — and whether its audience will follow.