Can you sell images from open-weights models? Licences compared

It depends on the model, and "open weights" settles nothing. Among the models in this week's news, Qwen-Image's weights are Apache 2.0, while Ideogram 4's public weights are non-commercial, with a paid tier that adds commercial use. This is a reading of vendor pages, not legal advice.

Every row below is from the vendor's own page on 2026-10-03. If a licence matters to a contract, read the full text.

What does each licence say?

The summary lines are deliberately short; the cards hold conditions I do not repeat.

Why does Apache on the code not cover the weights?

A repository can carry one licence while the files it downloads carry another. Ideogram's licensing page describes Apache 2.0 for the inference code on GitHub, while the weights are under the Ideogram 4 Non-Commercial licence on the Hugging Face card. Reading only the repo licence is the common mistake; check the model card as well.

Does a revenue threshold matter to you?

Two licences here key on company size. LTX-2.5's community licence is shown for under $10M revenue, so a larger company needs another arrangement. Your own tax filing, not this post, decides which side of the line you are on.

How is a hosted call different?

A hosted call is governed by the provider's terms, not by the weights licence. That is why a team may test a family on Sume's hosted rows before choosing to download. Sume does not tell you which build serves an id, and its Image API has no custom-weights field, so you cannot bring a licensed checkpoint to it.

• Check the model card, not just the repository licence.
• Save the licence text and the date you read it with the project.
• Look for revenue thresholds and application forms.
• Treat gated downloads as agreements you accepted personally.
• Ask counsel when an ad or a client contract depends on it.