It seems now as if Soundcloud is adding the tag and is doing it for other DAWs too, so I'm not sure you can say Logic and ProTools don't do it (although I haven't checked on SoundCloud). I think it's an exaggeration to say it's like PhotoShop putting a watermark in your pictures though - with PhotoShop, the professional end product is a picture. Them altering the picture would be awful. In this case, the end product is a piece of music and there is a tag in the descriptive information. To put them on the same level, Cakewalk would have to add a "this piece was created with Sonar" piece of AUDIO to the beginning of every song.

As it stands, it seems debatable that Cakewalk really did anything bad at all. Pictures I make with my Nikon D90 are also recognized as such with any photo software. It seems like Soundcloud is merely reading metadata from the file. It's a shame they don't let you delete it (or set it in preferences) though.

looks to me like it's part of the "using soundcloud api from within the app" kind of a deal, though of course us users aren't privvy to that unless someone tells us (unless soundcloud publicly publish their licensing info for this? i haven't bothered looking)

williamcopper
Interesting discussion.    Anderton, I'm sorry if I've been rude to you before, but accusing someone of breaking a law is worse than rude.   Be careful, please.   I do not use the product you quoted from, and I'm reasonably sure that my use of everything I use is legal. 
 
Yes, I can and will upload without Sonar.  But the more "features" in a product I have to take time to circumvent, the less the product has value to me. 

You seem to have completely missed the point Craig made which is that while you appear to be troubled by the inclusion of the wording referencing SONAR, depending on sample libraries you may be using, you may  be required to credit them in any public posting of your audio. Nothing accusatory at all, and i am positive was meant to be helpful. Something i at least hadn't thought about.

Lets try not to shoot the messenger. Craig is only trying to be helpful. 

Well, much like most of life, nobody knows much of anything.
 
A OP complains that "made by SONAR" is emblazoned on his SoundCloud song.  I don't blame him for being upset, but rather than blaming the logical idea is it the SoundCloud uploading scheme he blames SONAR.  Blaming SONAR for something bad here brings out a gag reflex in many forum users, which causes the said OP to dig in.  Craig comes along, offers some fact-checked facts and the off-topic remark that certain libraries have to be credited.  My first thought about the latter was he heard the library in the song, but maybe he was just pointing out a similar operation to "made by SONAR."  Either way, he added the facts that it wasn't a SONAR operation, but part of the SOUNDCLOUD uploading process, and may be mostly a SOUNDCLOUD artifact (along with some other comments).  I also learned that Logic and Protools may or may not include the same process and there doesn't seem to be an obvious way to turn it off.  Then Craig gets lambasted as trying to hide his connection w/ Gibson and Cakewalk.  Which is funny.  I forgot to check but I believe his connection w/ Cake/Gibson is in his signature.  I've never found he totes the company line, whatever that may be.  I do think (as we all should) he takes the viability of the company seriously and does consider problems in light of running a business.  Personally, I do have a lot of time and expertise (and money!) invested in SONAR and hope I don't have to start from scratch with another product.  I'd never get any of my own songs finished - for a while anyway. 
 
So, the problem remains that if you use SONAR to upload your songs to SoundCloud you will get the attached message.  Other DAWs may have the same problem.  The simple method to avoid this is to upload your song to SoundCloud outside of the DAW.  I tried to get Sonar to work w/ SoundCloud but it seemed was easier just to manually upload it (I have my own mastering method anyway) since I knew how to do that already.  If you don't want the message, don't use SONAR (or other DAWS) for their convenience.  I've never had SONAR or Sound Forge (or any  DAW) attach a credit to an mp3 file.  But don't give the companies any ideas.
 
@
 
 
[Edit:  Craig doesn't have his affiliation w/ Cakewalk "plastered" on his sig - my bad.  Still, I imagine most of us here know of it and he certainly doesn't hide it).

Not to drag this out even more, ..... but anyone who considers Craig Anderton to be biased about Cakewalk OR Gibson (or any other audio company), obviously doesn't know anything about Craig, nor have they read any of his posts in this and other forums over the last number of years. 
 
I would venture to say that Mr Anderton is one of the most UNBIASED people in the audio field!
 
Don't take my word for it, ...... go read his posts in almost every thread on this forum. 

joel77
I would venture to say that Mr Anderton is one of the most UNBIASED people in the audio field!
 
Don't take my word for it, ...... go read his posts in almost every thread on this forum. 

+1    Craig has done yeoman's work for the users of this forum, as well as the general public. 

Did a quick test.  I bounced/exported an mp3 (LAME) from Sonar.  I examined the properties via File Explorer, with no identifying information found.
 
I then shared the file on SC from within Sonar.  Sure enough, the "Created by Sonar" lingo was there.
 
I deleted the entry from SC, then uploaded the same file via a web browser.  This time the "Created by Sonar" lingo was absent.
 
This tells me that the DAWs are identifying themselves to SC during the upload process.  Of course this doesn't tell us whether or not SC is adding the "Created by ..." by agreement, or purely on their own.

This reminds me a bit of car dealerships charging you for an "advertising fee", yet have no problem putting a license plate frame on your car that advertises their dealership. Next time I should charge them for advertising on the car I bought.

Psychobillybob
Craig if you think you can post on the forum and get a pass as an unbiased poster you are sadly mistaken, the "bread is buttered" in it's current condition with your close relationship with the Cakewalk company that has your name loaded into the products fx chain, I am making no comment about income or product I am merely stating that you cannot possibly expect anyone on this forum to think you don't have a dog in the cakewalk parade...expecting you to say anything negative or even agree with anything negative about the product is not on the radar

 
Oh, so the threads I've started asking people to confirm bugs, the posts I've made confirming my being able to reproduce bugs, and agreeing with those who make negative comments where I feel they're warranted (e.g., saying "I do agree it's unnecessary for that link to be included" with respect to Copper's comment) never existed? My consistent, public support (and behind-the-scenes prodding) for those who want improvements and bug fixes in staff view were displayed with pixels that only you can't see?
 
I guess all the posts praising Ableton Live for its high-level warping algorithm and audio engine's suitability for live performance (which I endorse because, as mentioned many times, I use Live in my live performances) never existed? The post where I recommended someone use Studio One Pro for album assembly because its capabilities were superior to SONAR's...that never existed either? Or the ones where I recommended Reason as an instrument rack for SONAR because SONAR doesn't included a major league sampler like the NN-XT? 
 
If you haven't figured out in the past 12 years I'm here to help people, you need to re-evaluate your biases. Being on this forum to help people is not a part of my job description for Gibson any more than it was before I joined Gibson. Sure, you can say I'm biased; fine. Put your money where your mouth is: Find something I've posted that's factually inaccurate (preferably something where I didn't correct myself if I got something wrong). As far as I'm concerned, all that matters is the accuracy of the information, not the source. And I believe that's all that matters to the vast majority of people who frequent these forums.
 
There are many users on this forum who are far more gushing in their praise of SONAR than I am. I suppose they all work for Gibson Brands too? 
 
Do you even understand anything about the "old school"  journalistic ethic in which I was raised, where journalists were expected to put any personal biases they might have aside and report the facts? Just because that's not the norm any more doesn't mean I have to go along with it or accept it. I guess I can't avoid guilt by association but I would hope that people would judge what I say based on what I say.
 
Listen up:
 
I've been posting in these forums since 2003. I use SONAR because I like it. I have virtually every DAW on the planet installed on either my Mac or Windows machine, I know how to use them all, and I like SONAR best. That's been my reality for 15 years, that was my reality before Gibson hired me two years ago, and that is my reality now (except I feel SONAR has improved during the time it's been owned by Gibson).
 
I'm not going to lie and say negative things about SONAR I don't believe just to satisfy those who favor conspiracy theories, or don't believe it's possible for someone associated with a company to try and impart accurate information. I will say negative things when they are appropriate, and posts I've made in this forum prove I do, and are a matter of public record. Don't blame me if you haven't seen them; I've made them.
 
I don't need my job with Gibson Brands (my first job ever, FWIW). I had a great career that I could resume at any time. But it is an immense challenge, and very exciting, to work with all the brands - Gibson USA, Gibson Acoustic, Gibson Memphis, TASCAM, KRK, Cakewalk, etc. - as well as be instrumental in the startup of Neat Microphones. Gibson hired me because when I did consulting, I told the truth as I saw it. I continue to do the same because a "yes man" is no value to a company that is sincere about improving itself and offering its customers a better experience.
 
Cakewalk will not live or die based on what I say. It will live or die based on whether its users are happy with the program. For this reason, it benefits Cakewalk and the users if I draw attention to what makes this program great, and it benefits Cakewalk and the users if I draw attention to ways the program can be improved. Cakewalk has fixed several of the bugs that I discovered, reproduced, and confirmed in these very forums from people who understand the reality of how you make a great program.
 
I make no apologies for my actions, and will continue my attempts to disseminate accurate information for the benefit of those who appreciate such information. Those who want to believe I'm a morally bankrupt corporate shill are free to do so. Although if you're going to believe B.S., I'd prefer you believe I'm buff as hell, am irresistable to the opposite sex, and provide an endless source of bon mots at the never-ending succession of parties and events I attend.
 

AT
[Edit:  Craig doesn't have his affiliation w/ Cakewalk "plastered" on his sig - my bad.  Still, I imagine most of us here know of it and he certainly doesn't hide it).

You were probably thinking of my blog posts, which DO mention the Gibson affiliation because providing articles is part of my job description (which posting in this forum is not). And in a way, mentioning the Gibson affiliation is in itself somewhat deceptive because my enthusiasm of, and support for, SONAR extends back 13 years before Cakewalk became part of Gibson. To imply that my support of SONAR has a cause and effect with Gibson's acquisition is simply not supported by the facts.
 
Nonetheless, in order to satisfy those who think I should add a tag line to interfere with the art of my sig , I have added a disclaimer. It's unfortunate it will give those who are not familiar with my work the wrong impression, but anyone who has followed my career knows the reality of what I do, and why I do it. As to the others, I cannot reason them out of positions they did not use reason to attain.

Sheesh...I for one cannot afford such thin skin, I work with clients who might get offended if uploading from my DAW tags their material, so the best case for me is to avoid this kind of crap...glad the OP posted it, I would hate to have to explain to a client why their material got tagged by my software.
 
Somehow the rest of the discussion has way to much ego involved for my taste and reminds me why this forum is virtually worthless in a professional setting...everyone else bagging on the OP might want to consider how their own clients would feel about this scenario...
 
And for the record I tried it in both Logic and Sonar and Logic did NOT tag it like SOnar did...this might well be a soundcloud ad issue, but I know which program I will use to upload and it won't be sonar.

For the record, I've never used Sonar's Soundcloud upload feature, but if I did, the tag wouldn't bother me one bit.  Hell, maybe I should just starting embedding that "made with Sonar" tag myself to get fewer PMs from newbs asking: "dude, you're new track is totaly dope! what daw did u use to makeit?" [sic; and yes, that's a real PM]

https://developers.soundcloud.com/docs/api/reference
Check the "created_with" parameter.