The two entries that describe their own mark

Almost nothing in this register describes the mark itself. Two entries do: one says its watermark moves, the other gives the words and the corner. One scopes the claim to downloads from its own surfaces, the other to a request that asks for the stamp. From 2 source pages, read 2026-09-22 to 2026-10-25; no maker pays to be listed.

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.

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.

1Two descriptions, in a register of names

Thirteen entries name their mark in a word or two and describe nothing about it. These two go further. One adjective on the first, moving, rules out a fixed corner badge and tells a reader what a crop would leave behind. The second gives the words of the stamp and the corner it occupies, which lets a file be checked against the page.

Neither reaches a specification. Size, opacity and behaviour at other aspect ratios are unpublished on both, and the descriptions were produced for different reasons: one belongs to a safety enumeration, the other to the parameter list of an interface reference. Detail arrives as a by-product of the document's purpose.

2Both scope the claim to a route, not to the model

One statement covers videos downloaded from the vendor's own website and app; the other covers the output of a request that sets a field to true. In both cases the claim is about how a file was obtained or asked for rather than about a model, and the register records the scope as written instead of generalising it.

On one of the two, the default is documented and points away from the mark: the API field defaults to false, so a caller who does nothing gets an unstamped file. On the other, no switch is published at all, and the mark is described only for downloads.

3A manifest on one side, a field on the other

The system card entry offers no reason for its mark and instead names C2PA metadata on all assets and internal detection tools. The reference entry gives no reason either, and lists no provenance field among the parameters or the response.

So the two entries that describe their frame diverge completely on the file. One enumerates a provenance standard; the other enumerates every request field and names no metadata at all. Describing the mark turns out to predict nothing about describing the file.

4From the production side

Next to the marking question in “The described marks”, SceneMixer's pages describe its output like this:

The default for text stays the cheaper tier; Recommended is the badge on the tier the site suggests for hard episodes.

SceneMixer, Doubao Seed Evolving: the recommended text tier — “Is Recommended the same as default?” (read 2026-10-13)

Every new video carries the SceneMixer AIGC badge in its bottom-right corner unless you turn it off.

SceneMixer, The AI Badge Switch (read 2026-10-13)

5Sources

• Visible mark
  Listed for general availability among the provenance tooling for the vendor's own products: a visible moving watermark on videos downloaded from sora.com or the Sora applisted as provenance toolingOpenAI, Sora 2 system card / recorded 2026-09-22
• Paid tier
  The API request has a boolean watermark parameter that defaults to false; set true it adds a watermark in the lower-right corner with the text AI Generatedthe API surface, default offModel Studio, text-to-video API reference / since 2026-09-22 / checked 2026-10-25

Both values above are read from the vendor pages linked in the rows: openai.com and alibabacloud.com, on 2026-10-25. Each entry has its own page, Sora and Wan, and the rule for the column they diverge on is on the free tier column page. Other pairs: no free plan, or one that runs out, outside a price list.