GateTrue

What each generator documents about marking its output

A switch with a reason, and no route published

One entry documents a switch and gives a reason for using it. The other names its mark under Limitations and publishes no plan, parameter or setting that changes it. Same column, opposite ends. As of 2026-09-22.

Why removal is a question on one row and not the otherA visible overlay is something a customer might want absent, and two visible marks on one frame collide, which is the published reason for one vendor's switch. An invisible signal exists to identify the file, so suppressing it would defeat the mechanism and no vendor publishes a route.A visible overlayAn invisible signalWhat removal would doClean the frame for a destinationDefeat the identification mechanismControl publishedA switch, with an argument attachedNothing at allTwo marks on one fileCollide on the frameCoexist as two signalsAfter removalNo published trace of any kindNot offeredWhy one empty cell should be read narrowly
Fig. 1 The asymmetry in this column follows from the kind of mark, not from how generous a vendor is.
The two entries on one question at a time, in each vendor's own terms. Recorded 2026-09-22.
On this questionSceneMixerVeo
The controlA switch in settingsNothing published
The mark it applies toVisible, applied at compositingInvisible, named as a scheme
Reason publishedA destination that adds its own labelNone
What a recipient can checkNothing publishedA named verification platform
Document readA compliance guideDeveloper documentation

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.

Where each value above was read, and what the register records in the user toggle column. Recorded 2026-09-22.
GeneratorUser toggleDocument read
SceneMixerYes, in settingscompliance guide
VeoNot documentedVeo API documentation

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.

1Removal is a sensible question on one of these rows

One entry's mark is a visible overlay applied at compositing, which is exactly the kind of thing a customer might reasonably want absent, and the vendor provides a switch and an argument for using it. The other's is an invisible signal whose purpose is identification, so an off-switch would defeat the mechanism.

That is why the empty cell on the second row should be read narrowly. It records that no route is published, not that a capability is being withheld. A vendor offering to suppress its own provenance signal would be offering to make its own verification platform useless.

2A reason for removing, and no reason needed

The published argument on the first row is operational: a publishing platform that adds a label of its own would otherwise put two labels on one frame. It is the only case in this register for taking a mark off that is not about money, and it exists because the mark is visible and two visible marks collide.

Invisible signals do not collide. Two of them on one file are simply two signals, and no vendor needs an argument for allowing one to be switched off. The asymmetry in this column follows from the kind of mark rather than from the generosity of the vendor.

3What each row gives a recipient instead

The switch-gated row gives a recipient nothing: the guide tells publishers to keep whatever metadata the tool writes and names no scheme, so the file-contents cell records not documented. Once the switch is off there is no published trace of any kind.

The other row gives a recipient a scheme and a platform, which is what fills the file-contents column, and gives a buyer nothing at all: no tier, no price, no route. Between them the two rows cover all four columns without either one covering more than half.

4Sources

  • Visible mark
    A visible watermark is applied to composited episodes and is on by defaultstated in the vendor's own guideSceneMixer, compliance guide / recorded 2026-09-12
  • Control
    Not documented on the vendor's public pages (as of 2026-09-22)no plan and no request parameter publishedGemini API, Veo documentation / recorded 2026-09-22

Both values above are read from the vendor pages linked in the rows: scenemixer.com and ai.google.dev, on 2026-09-22. Each entry has its own page, SceneMixer and Veo, and the rule for the column they diverge on is on the control column page. Other pairs: ten dollars, or twenty-eight, the described marks.