A crossing point you can buy later, and one you cannot
Both entries stop applying the mark at a named plan. One vendor states that a watermark applied earlier survives the upgrade, so the purchase has a deadline the other one does not have. As of 2026-09-22.
| On this question | Luma AI | Pika |
|---|---|---|
| Where the mark stops | The thirty-dollar plan | The twenty-eight dollar plan |
| Earlier files | Stated to keep the watermark | Not addressed on the page |
| When the decision matters | Before the work is generated | Before the work is delivered |
| Recovery if missed | Generate the shot again | Pay, then export |
| Licence boundary | The same plan as the mark | The same plans as the mark |
Inclusion rule. One row per question on which these two entries can be compared from their own published pages. Questions neither vendor addresses are left out rather than filled with a dash. Order. Fixed order: the mechanism first, then who holds it, then what it leaves behind.
| Generator | Paid tier | Document read |
|---|---|---|
| Luma AI | No watermark from Plus ($30/mo) | licensing guide |
| Pika | Watermark-free from $28 Pro | pricing page |
Inclusion rule. The two entries on this page, with the value each one's own pages support in the column they diverge on. Order. Alphabetical by generator name.
1The same mechanism with and without a deadline
Read as values, these two cells are the same kind of thing: a named plan with a price, thirty dollars against twenty-eight. Read as consequences they are not. One vendor's licensing guide says a watermark applied under the free or entry plan cannot be removed even if the subscription is upgraded later; the other's pricing page says nothing about earlier files at all.
So on one entry the purchase can wait until delivery approaches and on the other it cannot wait at all. That is a scheduling constraint rather than a budget line, and it is invisible in a column that holds a tier and a figure.
2Why regenerating is not re-exporting
The recovery path on the deadline row is to generate the shot again, and that is not the same operation as exporting it again. A generative model asked the same question twice returns two different files, so the clean version of an approved shot is a new shot that has to be approved a second time.
On the entry without the stated deadline the register makes no claim in either direction, because the page does not address it. Silence is not permission: a reader planning around an upgrade on that row is relying on an absence, which is weaker evidence than the sentence on the other row and easier to mistake for good news.
3What both rows leave empty
Neither vendor names a provenance standard or a metadata field, so both record not documented in the file-contents column at every tier. Paying changes what a viewer sees on both entries and changes nothing a later reader could inspect on either.
Both also bundle the marking boundary with the commercial licence, which is worth noting because a third entry in this register does not: there the two lines sit a plan apart and produce a tier whose output is clean and unpublishable. Agreement between these two on that point is a coincidence of packaging, not a norm.
4Sources
- Free tierContent generated on the Free and Lite plans carries a watermark that cannot be removed, even if the subscription is upgraded laterstated on the licensing page
- Paid tierWatermark-free download is included from the $28 Pro plan upwardfrom Pro and Fancy
Both values above are read from the vendor pages linked in the rows: lumalabs.ai and pika.art, on 2026-09-22. Each entry has its own page, Luma AI and Pika, and the rule for the column they diverge on is on the paid tier column page. Other pairs: the first payment, no free plan, or a stated one.