Three of these four services ask you for a licence over the conversation you upload, and the three licences are not the same width. Textopsy takes the broadest: a worldwide, royalty-free licence to transform your content and to improve its own service. ChatAnalyzer and Portraitor take a narrow one, for providing the service and nothing else. Deluly asks for no licence at all, and asks you to indemnify it instead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Uploading a chat export is a contractual act, and every one of these services has written down what it is getting. The clauses sit in the intellectual property and user content sections of their terms, which is where almost nobody looks. Each of the four pages below was read on 7 November 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The useful question is not whether a service respects your chat. It is what its terms permit it to do with the file once it has it, and what you have promised in return.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A licence is the permission you hand over so the service can legally process your file. Without one, a service that stores or copies your chat is on thin ground. So most ask for one, and the wording is where they differ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Two of the pages are almost word for word the same. One is considerably wider. One is missing entirely, which turns out not to be the generous choice it sounds like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Section 3 of the Textopsy terms of service<\/a>, last updated 12 February 2026, says you grant Textopsy “a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to host, process, transform, and analyze your submitted content for operating, securing, improving, and enforcing the service”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Four verbs and four purposes. Two of the purposes, operating and securing, describe giving you the thing you paid for. The other two do not. Improving the service is a purpose that outlives your report, and enforcing it is a purpose that points at disputes rather than at analysis. The same section also makes you solely responsible for what you upload and has you warrant that you hold “all rights, permissions, and lawful basis required” to provide it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Textopsy’s liability ceiling is unusually explicit about the floor underneath it. Section 9 caps its total liability at the greater of what you paid in the twelve months before a claim, or USD $50. Section 11 asks you to attempt informal resolution for thirty days, routes unresolved disputes to individual arbitration, and waives class actions. Section 1 sets the minimum age at 18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 7 of the ChatAnalyzer terms of service<\/a>, last updated 24 March 2026, says: “You retain ownership of any data you upload. By using the Service, you grant us a limited license to process your data solely to provide the Service.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 8 of the Portraitor terms of service<\/a>, version 1.3, says: “you keep ownership of the conversation you submit. You grant us a limited licence to process it solely to provide the Service.” It adds that the portrait returned to you is yours to use for personal purposes and that Portraitor claims no ownership of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The word doing the work in both sentences is solely<\/em>. A licence limited to providing the service cannot be stretched to cover product improvement, because improvement is not provision. That is the difference between these two pages and the Textopsy one, and it is the whole difference: the verbs matter less than the purpose the verbs are allowed to serve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ChatAnalyzer is ahead of all three of the others on one point its own page states plainly. Section 11 says that on termination all your data will be permanently deleted within thirty days, and no clause on the page asks you to indemnify the company. Its terms also require an account, set the minimum age at 18, and limit one free account per person or legal entity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Deluly terms and conditions<\/a>, last updated 14 May 2026, contain no licence grant. What section 3 contains instead is a warranty and an indemnity. You represent that you have “the legal right or have obtained explicit consent from the other participants in the chat to upload their messages for AI analysis”, and you agree to “indemnify and hold Deluly (and its owners) harmless from any claims, damages, or legal actions brought by third parties whose data you uploaded without their permission”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That indemnity is narrower in subject than the others, because it is tied to one specific failure: uploading someone else’s messages without permission. It is also the only one of the four that names the exact person who would be bringing the claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two further things on the Deluly page are worth having in front of you. Section 4 names the sub-processor and the region, Google Cloud Vertex AI in europe-west1 in Belgium, and states that uploaded chat logs are never used to train Google’s or Deluly’s underlying models. Section 5 lists prohibited uses: harassing, stalking or doxing individuals, analysing chat logs involving minors, and uploading content that breaks criminal or intellectual property law. Section 2 notes that the report is reached through a secret link and that anyone holding the link can open it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Portraitor’s published register of third parties does not go that far. It lists an artificial-intelligence provider in the United States and describes what that provider receives, which is masked text, without naming the company. On naming its analysis provider, Deluly is simply ahead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the one clause all four pages share, and the one most likely to matter, because half of any export was written by somebody who never visited the site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Textopsy has you warrant that you hold every permission required. ChatAnalyzer’s section 4 forbids uploading files you do not have the legal right to analyse. Deluly has you represent that you hold the right or explicit consent. Portraitor’s section 5 forbids submitting a conversation you do not have permission to analyse, states that you confirm you have that permission before payment, and says in bold that you are responsible for that confirmation being true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Three of the four then add an indemnity on top. Portraitor’s section 12 is the widest of them: it covers claims arising from your use of the service, your breach of the terms, your violation of anyone’s rights, the content you submit, and actions you take based on a portrait. Textopsy’s section 10 is comparably wide. Deluly’s is tied to the consent failure above. ChatAnalyzer publishes none.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What the other people in the chat are told, and what each service says happens to their words, is a separate question with its own answer. Uploading a chat someone else is in<\/a> compares five services on exactly that, and what you cannot use a chat analysis for<\/a> walks through the acceptable use clause on the Portraitor side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Each page caps liability, and the caps are small enough to be worth reading before you upload anything you would mind losing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Textopsy: the greater of twelve months of payments or USD $50. ChatAnalyzer: the amount you paid in the three months before the claim. Portraitor: the amount you paid in the twelve months before the event giving rise to the claim. Deluly publishes no figure, and instead lists the categories it excludes, among them relationship breakdowns, emotional distress, decisions made on the content of a report, and loss of access to a report through a lost secret link.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On a one-off purchase these ceilings land in much the same place, because the amount paid is the amount of one report. The gap only opens for a subscriber, and it opens in favour of whichever page counts the longer window.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reading these clauses out is not the same as telling you what they would mean in your country or your situation. These are descriptions of published pages, nothing more, and four published pages do not settle a question about anyone’s rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A narrow licence is not the same as a service that keeps nothing. Those are two separate promises, made in two different documents, and a service can make one and not the other. Who can actually reach your chat<\/a> is the retention question, and it has a different answer from this one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Portraitor’s own position is narrow on the licence and wide on the indemnity, and the second half of that sentence is not flattering. Its architecture is the reason the licence can be narrow at all: the names and numbers in the file are replaced in your browser before anything is transmitted, the conversation is not written to a database, a backup or a log, and nothing is kept once the portrait is produced. A licence to improve a product from your chat would be difficult to exercise over text that is already gone. That is an architectural answer rather than a contractual one, and the contract is still the contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If what you want is the narrow licence plus no indemnity at all, ChatAnalyzer’s page is the only one of the four that offers both, and how it differs from Portraitor on everything else<\/a> is worth reading before you decide that settles it. If price is the axis you are actually weighing, free chat analysers against paid ones<\/a> sets out what each tier costs you instead of money. And who owns a chat analysis<\/a> covers the ownership side of the Portraitor clause in full.<\/p>\n\n\n\nChatAnalyzer and Portraitor use almost the same sentence<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Deluly asks for no licence and asks you to indemnify it instead<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Every one of the four puts the other person’s consent on you<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The ceiling on what any of them would owe you<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Where this leaves a conversation you did not write alone<\/h2>\n\n\n\n