Two provenance claims, one reader outside the vendor
Both entries name something written into the file. One also names the platform that verifies it, so a recipient can check. The other describes its detection tooling as internal to the vendor. As of 2026-09-22.
| On this question | Veo | Sora |
|---|---|---|
| What the file carries | A named in-picture signal | C2PA metadata on all assets |
| Who can read it | Anybody, on a named platform | The vendor's own staff |
| Where the mark lives | Inside the picture | Around the picture, plus a visible mark |
| Use to a recipient | Can establish provenance | Cannot establish anything |
| Document read | Developer documentation | A system card |
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.
| Generator | Machine-readable marking | Document read |
|---|---|---|
| Sora | C2PA on every asset, standard named | Sora 2 system card |
| Veo | SynthID, with a verification platform named | Veo 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.
1A filled cell is not automatically a usable one
Three generators fill the file-contents column, and this page holds two of them. Both name something specific, which is what the column requires. Only one names a route by which the party holding a file can check it, and that difference decides whether the cell helps anybody other than the vendor.
The register keeps marking and detection as separate facts for this reason. A signal that exists and cannot be read from outside is a capability the vendor has, not a property a publisher can rely on, and collapsing both into a provenance column would make the two rows look equivalent.
2Two mechanisms that fail in opposite directions
One of these signals lives inside the picture and the other is a manifest attached around it. A re-encode through an editor is the operation that separates a manifest from a file; a crop or a filter is what threatens a signal carried by pixels. Neither vendor on this page publishes a durability caveat, so both claims are recorded as made.
A third entry in this register does publish one, saying a credentials check works unless the metadata has been removed. Its absence here is the ordinary state of the subject: the fragile layer gets named and its fragility is left for the reader to work out.
3What each row leaves empty
The developer-documented row records not documented for the visible mark, because nothing describes anything on the frame, and no route for the control column. The card-read row describes its visible mark unusually well, as visible and moving, and records no plan and no route.
So the two rows agree on the commercial columns, both empty, and differ on everything a recipient would use. Read together they show that naming a standard is a floor rather than a finish: the next question is always who is able to read it.
4Sources
- DetectionVideos can be verified using the SynthID verification platforma named platform
- DetectionAlso in that list: internal detection tools to help assess whether a certain video or audio was created by the vendor's productsheld inside the vendor
Both values above are read from the vendor pages linked in the rows: ai.google.dev and openai.com, on 2026-09-22. Each entry has its own page, Veo and Sora, and the rule for the column they diverge on is on the machine-readable marking column page. Other pairs: inside or around, one price, two nouns.