SenseDefend

Synthetic-media instruments, by article and effective date

What a flag set in code does to a finished file

A plan appears on an invoice. A flag set in an integration appears nowhere, and one entry in this record states that a mark it applied cannot be taken off a video already produced. As of 2026-09-12.

A cause with no trace, and a file that cannot be fixedA plan shows on an invoice. A flag set in an integration shows nowhere, and one entry states that a mark it applied cannot be taken off a video already produced. The published route is to produce the asset again.A plan as the causeA test flag as the causeVisible afterwardsOn an invoiceNowhere, unless loggedWho set itWhoever holds the budgetWhoever wrote the integrationFix for the next renderUpgradeClear the flagFix for a finished fileGenerate it againGenerate it againOne documented case where no purchase reaches a file already made
Fig. 1 A generated video produced a second time is not guaranteed to match the first, which is the whole problem where an approved cut exists.
One documented case where no purchase reaches a file already made. Recorded 2026-09-12.
PointWhere it sitsWhat the record holds
The causeOne support articleAn API test flag, set by whoever built the integration
What it cannot doThe same articleA mark in test mode cannot be removed from an existing video
The route that existsThe same articleA new request with the flag off, which means a new render

Inclusion rule. Entries whose pages state that a mark persists on a finished asset. Entries silent about finished files are recorded as silent. Order. The cause first, then the limit, then the route.

1The permanence a regulator wants is the permanence that hurts

A notice a customer can lift off a finished file is a weak notice. Read from that side this is the strong case in the record, and it is strong because of a flag somebody set in code on a day nobody remembers.

Read from the production side the same property is a hazard. An approved cut carrying an unwanted mark cannot be repaired by buying anything, because the published route is to produce the asset again.

2Re-requesting is not re-exporting

A generated video produced a second time is not guaranteed to match the first. Where an approved cut exists, that is the whole problem, and nothing on the page addresses whether an identical result can be reproduced.

Two other entries in this record put their marking control in a per-call parameter as well. Neither states what happens to a file already made, so this is the one documented answer to a question all three raise.

3Which makes one field in a delivery record worth a great deal

Noting the request parameters at render time costs a moment. Recovering them afterwards is impossible unless the pipeline logged them, and no vendor in this record undertakes to remember on a caller's behalf.

The manner paragraph wants the information given at the latest on first exposure, which makes the state at render time the fact that matters. Today's setting explains nothing about last quarter's files.

  • Synthesia
    A mark applied in test mode cannot be removed from an existing video; a new request with the test flag off is requiredthe API half of the same pageSynthesia, knowledge base / recorded 2026-09-22
  • Synthesia
    Basic-plan users are told to upgrade the plan and re-generate the videothe route off the visible markSynthesia, knowledge base / recorded 2026-09-22
  • MiniMax Hailuo
    The parameter is optional and defaults to falsethe state of an unmodified requestMiniMax, video API reference / recorded 2026-09-22
  • Article 50(5)
    The information must be given clearly and distinguishably at the latest at the first interaction or exposureand must meet accessibility requirementsAI Act Explorer, Article 50 / recorded 2026-09-12

4Sources

Article wording from AI Act Explorer, Article 50; vendor statements from the pages listed on each generator entry. Both read 2026-09-12. Related: Scope you can use, What an upload leaves, Naming a standard.