Runway AI for ads

What Runway makes for ads

Runway’s own video models include Gen-4.5, Gen-4, Gen-4 Turbo and the video-to-video Aleph 2.0. The Standard card adds “Music, voice & sound effects generation” (pricing page).

Runway also “carries Kling 3.0, Kling O3, Veo 3.1, Seedance 2.5 and Gemini Omni Flash”, says the FAQ on its MiniMax H3 page. MiniMax H3 and Alibaba’s Wan 3.0 have Runway pages of their own, and the compare table adds Seedance 2.0.

For ad formats, Runway’s developer API sells fixed “recipes”. Product Ad turns one to ten product photos into a clip of up to 15 seconds (Product Ad docs).

How to make a UGC ad on Runway

Runway’s UGC ads page describes a web-app route: upload product photos as references, write the scene “like a shot brief”, then make takes “with different hooks” and keep the winners. Clips generate in 9:16 “from the start”. No Runway page we read says which model this runs or how many credits a clip takes.

The API’s Product UGC recipe takes “a reference image of the on-camera creator and a reference image of the product” and returns a vertical clip of 4 to 15 seconds (Product UGC docs). At the API’s $0.01 a credit, a 15-second clip at 1080p costs $6.48 (API pricing).

What a second of Runway video costs

A second of Runway’s Gen-4.5 costs $0.29 on Standard at $15 a month and $0.12 on Max at $95 a month, if every credit is used. Gen-4.5 uses 12 credits a second on every paid plan (pricing page, prices read on 24 September 2026).

Credits lapse on Standard and Pro: they “reset within 24 hours of your billing date each cycle”. Max carries up to one month of unused credits into the next. Top-ups of 1,000 credits or more “never expire” (pricing FAQ), at a price the pricing page does not print.

Every plan, billing period and clip length: Runway pricing. Against other tools: the AI ad tool price tracker.

Can you use Runway videos in paid ads?

Yes, within the terms: s.4.4 sets no commercial-use limit, and below Enterprise lets Runway train on inputs and outputs. Section 4.4 of the Terms of Use, last updated 15 September 2026, reads:

The Company does not claim ownership of any of your Inputs or Outputs. Subject to your compliance with the Agreement, the Company does not restrict your commercial use of your Outputs. You acknowledge that Inputs and Outputs may be used by the Company to train and improve its AI models, algorithms and related technology, products and services (including for labeling, classification, content moderation and model training purposes). As such, you hereby grant to the Company a non-exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, fully paid, transferable, sublicensable right and license to use any Inputs and Outputs Made Available by you or otherwise generated in connection with your use of the Services at any point, in connection with the purposes described above.

Runway’s UGC ads page goes further: “You own full commercial rights to the video you create with Runway.” The terms stop at “does not claim ownership”, and leave commercial use unrestricted only “Subject to your compliance with the Agreement”. That page leaves out the condition and the training licence.

On our reading, an agency that uploads client footage grants Runway that licence over it. Section 4.4 names no opt-out.

The Enterprise Services Terms (1 June 2026) turn it off: “Runway may not use Customer Content as training data for the Services.” Anyone “on an organizational plan that is not an Enterprise Services Plan” stays under the Terms of Use, Runway’s Team plan among them on our reading.

Faces need consent. The Usage Policy (6 March 2026) prohibits “Use of an image, video, or audio of another person without their permission”, and the Product UGC docs add: “Make sure you have the rights and consent to use any person’s likeness as a reference.”

Runway’s avatars are less clear. Section 3.1 says “Your Content includes Custom Avatars but does not include the Services themselves or Stock Avatars”, and no clause says whether an output featuring a Stock Avatar may run as an ad.

Custom Avatars pull two ways. Section 4.1 reads: “Except with respect to Your Content and User Content, you agree that Company and its suppliers own all rights, title and interest in the Services and the Custom Avatars.” Who owns an avatar made for you is unclear.

The rest of s.4.1 reads: “You will not remove, alter or obscure any copyright, trademark, service mark or other proprietary rights notices incorporated in or accompanying the Services”. Whether that covers the watermark on Free-plan clips is unclear.

If you breach the terms, s.14.2 gives Runway “the right to, immediately and without notice, suspend or terminate any Services provided to you”. Every clause by plan and use: Runway’s row in the AI commercial use matrix.

The Sora 2 page’s route table sets Runway beside Veo on Flow or the Gemini API, Kling and Higgsfield. Of those routes, only Runway’s terms allow paid ads outright.

Is Runway the right shop for Seedance, Veo and Kling?

Runway is not the cheaper shop for Seedance 2.0 at 1080p, if both shops sell the same tier. With every credit used, invideo Plus charges less a second than Runway Standard, Pro or Max. Runway sells “Seedance 2.0 Pro 1080p” at 160 credits per 4 seconds, 40 a second (pricing page).

On invideo Plus at $60 a month, Seedance 2.0 at 1080p takes about 38 credits per 5 seconds (invideo pricing). On Luma Plus at $30 a month, it takes 126 credits a second (Luma pricing). If every credit is used and the tiers match, monthly Runway Standard’s rate is about 320 per cent above invideo Plus’s: $0.96 a second against about $0.23.

The tier match is our reading; no vendor states it. Runway’s API prices plain “seedance2” at 1080p at the same 40 credits a second, beside “seedance2_fast” (API pricing), which suggests “Pro” is the standard Seedance 2.0.

If the tiers differ, Runway’s row is a different product. Luma then sits 64 to 66 per cent above invideo: $0.378 a second against $0.228 to $0.231 (Luma pricing, invideo pricing).

The other two Seedance shops attach conditions. On invideo, outputs carry a commercial licence (section 4(h)), but clips with its stock media follow that media’s licence (invideo’s rights row). Luma allows commercial use only of outputs “produced during an active Subscription Term” of a paid plan, and clips from hosted models answer to their makers’ terms (Luma’s rights row).

For Veo 3.1 with audio, Runway Max costs no more than Google’s own API, and Standard and Pro cost more, if every credit is used. Runway charges 40 credits a second for it in the pricing page’s View more rows (pricing page).

Google’s Gemini API lists Veo 3.1 Standard with audio at $0.40 a second at 720p or 1080p on its paid tier (Gemini API pricing).

Runway’s API prices “veo3.1” with audio at the same 40 credits and “veo3.1_fast” at 15 (API pricing), so the web row looks like the Standard tier.

With every credit used, Kling 3.0 costs less on Kling’s own API than on Runway Standard, Pro or monthly Max (Kling developer pricing). Runway takes 17 credits a second for “Kling 3.0 Pro” with audio, in the pricing page’s View more rows.

Only yearly Max goes below Kling’s own price, though no Runway page we read says whether that row is 1080p.

Google’s own API leaves ad use unclear. The Gemini API terms say Google “won’t claim ownership” of generated content, and no clause in them grants or limits ad use.

Runway’s terms have no clause on the other makers’ models it hosts, so on our reading s.4.4 covers Veo and Kling clips made there. Whether Google’s or Kling’s own terms also apply to those clips is unclear.

Kling’s row in the rights matrix rates ad use on its API unclear. Member rates and rights: Kling for ads.

Pros and cons on paper

Do invideo, Luma and Google Veo train on your uploads?

If the training licence rules Runway out, invideo’s terms (effective 8 July 2026) say “Invideo will not use your User Data to train or fine-tune its artificial intelligence or machine-learning models” (invideo terms, section 4). Luma is no escape: its paid-use input licence covers training and turns “perpetual and irrevocable” for input reflected in output (Luma terms, 14 May 2026).

Google Veo sells Veo 3.1 direct. Google’s API pricing table answers “Used to improve our products” with “No” for Veo 3.1 on the paid tier (Gemini API pricing), though the Gemini API’s terms leave ad use unclear.

On Google Cloud, the Service Specific Terms (24 September 2026) bar training on customer data without the customer’s permission (s.18) and name no commercial limit. Section 20(i) extends Google’s IP indemnity to unmodified output from paid Veo, except trademark claims from use “in trade or commerce” and other listed cases.

Both routes: Google’s row in the rights matrix. Flow and the API: Google Veo for ads.

Three of the rivals priced above:

• AI video generators

  Google Veo

  Google’s Veo 3.1 and Gemini Omni Flash video models, used through Flow, the Gemini app or the Gemini API.

  From $4.99 a month · checked 24 Sep 2026

  Best for Hero shots and B-roll up to 8 s with native audio, on a Google AI plan’s Flow credits or the Gemini API.

• AI video generators

  Kling AI

  Kuaishou’s video models (Kling 3.0, 3.0 Omni, Turbo) with native audio, multi-shot clips up to 15 s and native 4K.

  Price unverified

  Best for Paying members making 3 to 15-second product clips with native audio who spend each month’s credits before they expire.

• All-in-one suites

  invideo AI

  Script-to-edited-video agent with a timeline editor, stock library and third-party models such as Seedance and Veo.

  From $20 a month · checked 24 Sep 2026

  Best for Marketers who want a finished, edited video with stock, voice and generated shots in one tool, plus terms that rule out training on their data.

Every video generator in the database: AI video generators.