A generated testimonial needs evidence for the experience it describes, not just permission to use the video commercially. If nobody actually had the claimed experience, present the scene as a fictional demonstration rather than a customer endorsement.
Separate ownership from truthfulness
Runway's usage-rights statement says that, as between you and Runway, you retain ownership and rights to uploaded and generated content. It also says generations have no non-commercial restrictions imposed by Runway and require no formal credit.
Those statements do not establish that a depicted customer exists, that a quoted result happened, or that somebody approved an endorsement. Treat those as separate editorial questions. For an Indian campaign, review every language version: a cautious English sentence should not become a guaranteed result in Hindi or Tamil.
Complete a testimonial truthfulness sheet
Before production, record these fields for each spoken or on-screen claim:
- Experience: What exactly does the speaker claim to have used, bought or achieved?
- Evidence: What non-sensitive, approved evidence supports that exact wording?
- Identity: Is the speaker fictional, an actor, or an identifiable person whose permission needs review?
- Endorsement: Who approved the recommendation, and for which campaign context?
- Disclosure: Could viewers mistake a fictional demonstration for a real customer's account?
- Translation: Does each version preserve qualifications and avoid strengthening the claim?
Mark each field supported, unresolved or unsuitable. An unresolved experience claim should not become publishable merely because the visual looks convincing.
Hypothetical example: a coaching advertisement
Suppose a fictional Bengaluru coaching business proposes a generated speaker saying, “I improved my score by 40 marks in one month.” The inputs are a fictional identity, no learner record and a script written by the marketing team.
The worksheet fails on experience evidence and endorsement. Adding “AI-generated” identifies production technique but does not explain whether the result happened. A safer editorial revision is an explicitly fictional study-planning demonstration without a claimed learner outcome. Evaluate the revised version by asking a reviewer what they think is real after watching it once.
Decide whether to publish or rewrite
Stop if the persuasion depends on viewers believing an unsupported personal experience. Next, rewrite the concept around a demonstrable process or obtain appropriate approval and evidence without uploading customer material.
If comparing production access, check the AI tools catalog for access format and saved offer terms before buying. Marketplace account/code/token offers are not proof of official subscription equivalence; purchasing access does not validate an endorsement.
Sources and scope
Source material checked 29 October 2026; features/policies may change. Runway usage rights establishes the bounded platform-rights statements above. Runway's Usage Policy describes automated and internal human review to detect and block harmful inputs and outputs. Neither establishes testimonial truthfulness. The worksheet is editorial advice, not legal clearance.