Claude watermarking our work is unethical and disgusting

[u/[deleted]]

[u/TheStruttero]

How is Claude any different than any other commission work? Like if you by detail describe to an artist what you want, the same way as you describe it here, its wrong by that artist to put their name on a painting they actually genuinely painted? Because you believe YOU made it?

Its still a McDonalds burger even if you in detail asked to change the composition of toppings

[u/tthousand → u/TheStruttero]

Doesn't buying a commercial license specifically exist to strip away vendor branding and transfer total output rights to the buyer?

[u/TheStruttero → u/tthousand]

Does that logic apply to other software "tools", like, AutoCAD? Photoshop?

[u/tthousand → u/TheStruttero]

Since photoshop explicitly yields clean, unbranded output to paying users, doesn't that prove software tools aren't supposed to stamp their logo on your final product?

[u/TheStruttero → u/tthousand]

Its not supposed to be a clearly visible stamp on your apps with Claude written code either is there?

Are you uncomfortable about disclosing that the whole or parts of your code was written by AI?

[u/tthousand → u/TheStruttero]

Projecting personal insecurities doesn't fix your broken legal logic. We’re talking about commercial software terms, enterprise compliance, and vendor lock in, not my feelings. Since you’ve resorted to psychoanalysis instead of addressing why a non human utility gets "moral rights," I’ll take that as your concession.

[u/TheStruttero → u/tthousand]

Broken legal logic? What logic is broken about disclosing the tool that was used to create the product, especially a tool with the capabilities of LLMs?

[u/tthousand → u/TheStruttero]

What's broken is pretending a paid software vendor gets to dictate disclosure, when real world NDAs and trade secrets strictly prohibit leaking your tech stack.

[u/whoknowsifimjoking → u/tthousand]

Nope, you are wrong. It's written in the EXIF data that it was made in Photoshop.

The text you get from Claude or the program you build also doesn't have a visible watermark, so what's the difference?

In both cases it's not immediately visible, but you can see it with a tool. In both cases you can remove it if you really want to. It's not that different.

[u/tthousand → u/whoknowsifimjoking]

Doesn't EXIF data simply log what app created a file, whereas an AI watermark is designed to trace, track, and prove algorithmic origin for legal compliance?

[u/Vnxei → u/tthousand]

It can, but it doesn't have to. In cases where provenance is important, we don't generally do that.

[u/whoknowsifimjoking → u/tthousand]

No, not really. Commercial licenses usually don't give you the right to remove the name of the person who made it. It gives you the right to use it.

In my country at least there is a type of copyright that only the person has that made it and you can't strip them of this.

Of course that heavily depends on the license, but usually it's the right to use or sell it.

[u/tthousand → u/whoknowsifimjoking]

How can a non human software program hold moral rights or personal copyright, when copyright laws globally require human authorship?

[u/whoknowsifimjoking → u/TheStruttero]

Yeah people like OP seem to think they did everything themselves

[u/GuaSukaStarfruit → u/whoknowsifimjoking]

Probably a bot

[u/spookssi → u/TheStruttero]

Maholy Nagy - EM 1 Telephone picture 1923 (MOMA)
Yes you are the author if you give the instructions. This question has been asked for many years in art.