Alpaca Display Rights — Surface-Display & Sentiment-Score Derivation Memo

Business + Legal Research Brief

Status: research-only. This document does NOT constitute legal advice. Every conclusion below is sourced from the public Alpaca Terms and Conditions PDF retrieved from https://files.alpaca.markets/disclosures/library/TermsAndConditions.pdf (PDF metadata creation date 2021-08-31, retrieved 2026-05-31 UTC) and the Alpaca Support article on redistribution (https://alpaca.markets/support/redistribute-alpaca-api, noted as November 2022). The signed Algo Trader Plus subscription agreement (the customer-side instrument governing the operator's account) is NOT in the repository — see "AWAITING OPERATOR CONFIRMATION" below. Before acting on any finding, consult a technology-licensing attorney with fintech data-vendor experience AND confirm in writing with Alpaca via the partnerships@alpaca.markets route already drafted in the operator's Google Drive ("Raxx — Alpaca News Data Rights Outreach Email (DRAFT, 2026-05-09)").

Last updated: 2026-05-31 UTC. Per feedback_human_to_human_drive.md: this memo is also uploaded to the operator's Google Drive for attorney / Alpaca-account-rep retrieval.

1. Executive Summary

Headline display to Raxx subscribers: CONDITIONAL — likely permitted if framed as in-platform display to authenticated paying subscribers and accompanied by the source attribution (the source field returned by Alpaca's News API). The public Terms PDF does not directly grant or deny this — it restricts "redistribution" and "publicly displayed... for any commercial enterprise" but is silent on display-to-own-subscriber in a User Application context. The "Personal and Non-Commercial Usage" clause names this exact scenario ("User Application") and requires 30-day advance written notice to Alpaca. Recommendation: do not display Alpaca-sourced headlines to subscribers until written confirmation from Alpaca is on file.

Sentiment scores derived from Alpaca headlines: CONDITIONAL — the public Terms PDF does not address derivative analytical scores at all. The most-favorable interpretation is that scores derived from headline text via a Raxx-owned local model (FinBERT) are Raxx's own work product. The most-conservative interpretation is that anything traceable back to Alpaca-furnished Content remains subject to the personal-and-non-commercial clause. Recommendation: do not display sentiment scores derived from Alpaca-sourced text until written confirmation, even if the score itself never reveals the underlying headline.

Attribution requirements (logo, "Powered by Alpaca"): The public Terms PDF does NOT mandate an Alpaca logo or "Powered by Alpaca" badge. It DOES say Raxx must not "use any Marks for any purpose without the prior express written consent of the respective owners" — meaning if Raxx wanted to display "Powered by Alpaca" the operator must obtain written consent first. The Terms also require Raxx to not strip the Third-Party Provider attribution: news articles include a source field (e.g., "Benzinga", "MarketWatch") which is a Third-Party Mark and must remain attached when displayed.

Per-user vs aggregate display: The public Terms PDF does not draw this distinction. Per Alpaca's November 2022 Support article: "Unfortunately, you cannot redistribute Alpaca API data." This is the bluntest statement in any sourced document and reads as a blanket prohibition. Alpaca's own February 2022 blog post (sourced separately) advertises that Broker API developers can build in-platform news widgets for end users — implying that the same right is NOT automatically extended to Trading API / Algo Trader Plus subscribers. The tier-vs-tier display-rights gap is the single most-load-bearing open question and is one of the three scenarios in the operator's pending Alpaca outreach email.

Bottom line: the publicly-available documents do not authorize any Alpaca-sourced display to Raxx subscribers on the current Algo Trader Plus subscription. The operator's pending outreach to partnerships@alpaca.markets (drafted 2026-05-09 UTC, not yet sent as of this memo's date) is the load-bearing next step. Until written confirmation is received, the safer path is to either (a) defer the Reasonator sentiment-display feature, (b) use a separately-licensed news source (e.g., direct Benzinga agreement) for the surface-display layer, or (c) accept the legal exposure with documented operator acknowledgement.

Top-3 risk findings

1. Personal-and-Non-Commercial clause names "User Application" explicitly. Alpaca's Terms PDF Section "Personal and Non-Commercial Usage" reads: "Should you wish to use the Services and Content for any other purposes, including without limitation commercial usage, or making the Services and Content available to others through your own application (a 'User Application'), you shall provide Alpaca with 30 days advance written notice prior to making such User Application available to others." Raxx IS a User Application. The 30-day-notice clause is therefore in scope. Raxx has not sent that notice as of 2026-05-31 UTC.

2. The "publicly displayed" prohibition is broad. Section "Content" reads: "No part of the Service or Content may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, publicly displayed, encoded, translated, transmitted or distributed in any way (including 'mirroring') to any other computer, server, web site or other medium for publication or distribution or for any commercial enterprise, without Alpaca's express prior written consent." "Publicly displayed" is the word that bites here — a Raxx subscriber viewing the dashboard is arguably not the public, but the clause does not draw that line. "For any commercial enterprise" applies even if displayed to one paying customer.

3. Alpaca's November 2022 Support article is the bluntest sourced statement. "Unfortunately, you cannot redistribute Alpaca API data." The Support article does not distinguish display to authenticated subscribers from broader redistribution. If Alpaca's legal team treats this Support article as binding interpretation, the entire Reasonator sentiment-display surface is at risk on the current subscription tier.

2. AWAITING OPERATOR CONFIRMATION

The following inputs are needed before this memo can be locked. Each is a concrete operator action; the memo updates in-place once they land.

3. Scenarios — Detailed Findings

Scenario A — Can headline text be surface-displayed to a Raxx subscriber?

Answer: CONDITIONAL — likely NO under current subscription, pending written Alpaca confirmation.

Clauses bearing on this scenario:

• Personal and Non-Commercial Usage (full clause quoted in §1 finding #1)
• Content section: "Content is provided exclusively for personal and noncommercial access and use. No part of the Service or Content may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, publicly displayed, encoded, translated, transmitted or distributed in any way (including 'mirroring') to any other computer, server, web site or other medium for publication or distribution or for any commercial enterprise, without Alpaca's express prior written consent."
• Alpaca Support (November 2022): "Unfortunately, you cannot redistribute Alpaca API data."

Why "CONDITIONAL" and not "NO":

The Terms PDF explicitly recognizes the User Application concept and provides a 30-day-notice path. That path implies Alpaca contemplates User Application use — they would not provide a notice mechanism for something they categorically forbid. The path forward is: (a) send the 30-day notice with the proposed display use, (b) get either written approval or a counter-offer (e.g., "move to Broker API tier"), (c) act accordingly.

Recommendation for operator confirmation with Alpaca account rep: Frame as scenario-specific, not abstract. The draft outreach email already does this well — three concrete scenarios with yes/no/section-reference asks. Send the draft.

Scenario B — Can sentiment scores derived from Alpaca headlines be displayed?

Answer: CONDITIONAL — likely NO under current subscription, even though no headline text is shown.

Clauses bearing on this scenario: None directly. The Terms PDF is silent on derivative analytical scores. The Content section's prohibition is on "the Content" — whether a sentiment score derived from the Content counts as "the Content" itself is a question of contract interpretation that the public document does not answer.

Two competing readings:

1. Operator-favorable: A sentiment score is Raxx's own work product. The model (FinBERT) is Raxx's, the inference pass is on Raxx's infrastructure, the output number is not the Alpaca-furnished text. Therefore the score is not "the Content" and the Terms PDF's restrictions do not bind.

2. Conservative / Alpaca-favorable: The score is causally derived from "the Content" and cannot be computed without "the Content." Alpaca's investment in sourcing and tagging the news is the input substrate; any derivative output substrate is, in effect, a transformation of "the Content" and falls under the same restrictions.

Why "CONDITIONAL": US copyright law generally protects original expression, not factual data or numerical computations on factual data — sentiment scores on factual data should be Raxx's work product under copyright analysis. But contract law (which is what governs the Alpaca relationship, not copyright) is set by the parties and can prohibit anything they agree to prohibit. The Terms PDF does not explicitly cover derivative analytical scores either way. The conservative reading wins until Alpaca confirms otherwise.

Recommendation: Ask Alpaca specifically (this is Scenario 3 of the operator's pending outreach email). If Alpaca says "scores are yours," document it in writing and retain. If Alpaca says "scores fall under the Content prohibition," then the FinBERT-on-Alpaca-text pipeline cannot be productized on the Algo Trader Plus tier and a different news source is needed for the input layer.

Scenario C — Attribution requirements (logo, "Powered by Alpaca")

Answer: The Terms PDF does not require Raxx to display an Alpaca logo or "Powered by Alpaca" attribution. It DOES require Raxx to not strip Third-Party-Provider attribution and to not use any Marks (including Alpaca's) without written consent.

Clauses:

• General section: "company names, logos, product and service names, trade names, trademarks and services marks (collectively, 'Marks') owned by Alpaca, and Marks owned by Third Party Providers" are explicitly named as part of the Content.
• Content section: "You acknowledge that Alpaca is the sole owner of Alpaca Marks and that other Marks are the property of their respective owners. You agree that you will not use any Marks for any purpose without the prior express written consent of the respective owners."

Practical implication for Reasonator:

• Each news article returned by Alpaca's News API has a source field (e.g., "Benzinga", "MarketWatch"). That source string IS a Third-Party Mark. Raxx MUST display it alongside the headline (or, if the headline isn't displayed at all in the Scenario-B-only world, the source attribution may not apply — but if any text from the article is surfaced, the source attribution rides with it).
• "Powered by Alpaca" is NOT required. If the operator chooses to display it for goodwill / vendor-relationship reasons, written consent from Alpaca is required first.
• A bare numerical sentiment score (e.g., "AAPL sentiment: +0.74") with no headline text surfaced and no Alpaca branding does not implicate Marks. It does still raise Scenario B's interpretive question.

Scenario D — Per-user vs aggregate display restrictions

Answer: The public Terms PDF does NOT distinguish per-user display from aggregate display. The "publicly displayed... for any commercial enterprise" prohibition reads as scope-agnostic. The November 2022 Support article ("you cannot redistribute Alpaca API data") is even blunter.

The tier distinction matters more than the per-user vs aggregate distinction. Alpaca's February 2022 blog post advertises that Broker API developers can build in-platform news widgets for end users — but this advertisement is in marketing copy, not in the Terms PDF. The implication is that Alpaca treats Broker API as the licensed tier for end-user display, and Trading API / Algo Trader Plus as not-licensed-for-end-user-display.

Recommendation: the operator should ask Alpaca specifically whether Algo Trader Plus carries the same end-user display rights as Broker API (this is Scenario 2 of the operator's pending outreach email). If "no," the only paths forward are (a) upgrade to Broker API (compliance overhead — Raxx becomes an introducing party in some interpretations), (b) license news directly from Benzinga, or (c) drop the headline-display feature and limit Reasonator to sentiment-only on the Pro+ tier surface (Scenario B's confirmation becomes load-bearing).

4. Cross-reference to engineering scope

5. Recommendation summary

1. Send the pending Alpaca outreach email. The Drive draft (1-IGgBdLVYY5HQ7yTkT27mcgfHNXpmECeNcABRgRxLrQ) addresses Scenarios A, B, and D directly. The Send Checklist in the draft is complete; the operator needs to confirm a few fields and click send. Without a written Alpaca response, every conclusion in this memo stays "CONDITIONAL."

2. Do not ship Reasonator's customer-facing display surfaces until written confirmation is on file. Reasonator's internal scoring (background batch, audit log) can proceed — it does not display Alpaca-sourced content to subscribers. The customer-facing panel (#1398) and the Pro+ real-time chip should remain feature-flagged off until Alpaca's response lands.

3. Engage a technology-licensing attorney for the response review. Matthew Crosby's engagement is primarily trademark; this is a data-vendor agreement interpretation question and may need a different attorney specialization. Per docs/business-legal/securities-attorney-engagement-2026-05-13/02-scope-of-work.md, the operator already has a securities attorney engagement structure to model.

4. Document the operator's risk acceptance decision in writing if shipping pre-response. If the operator chooses to ship Reasonator's display surface before Alpaca confirms, the decision should be recorded as an operator memo (date, scope, accepted exposure) — not buried in a Slack DM or a comment on this memo.

5. Confirm the document version Alpaca treats as binding. The Terms PDF metadata says 2021-08-31; Alpaca may have a newer version on their site. Ask Alpaca which version governs the operator's existing subscription. This is question #4 in the attorney-review notes section of the Drive draft.

6. Sources reviewed

7. Awaiting items not in §2

(Held for future updates as Alpaca responds and the operator engages counsel.)

• Whether Benzinga is a viable direct-license alternative for the headline-display layer
• Whether a second news source (e.g., MarketWatch via separate license) could substitute
• Whether Alpaca's response unlocks a "Reasonator on Trading API tier" path or requires Broker API
• Whether retention limits apply to stored headlines under the Alpaca agreement (Scenario 1 of the outreach email)

Before acting on any conclusion in this memo, send the pending Alpaca outreach email and wait for the written response. This memo is research and drafting output, not legal advice.