Durability caveats, and who publishes one

One entry publishes the limit of its own mechanism: a credentials check should indicate a file was generated unless the metadata has been removed. One other warns publishers about re-encoding in general terms. As of 2026-09-22.

Inclusion rule. Entries whose pages state a condition under which their own marking or metadata would fail to be found. A claim about robustness is not a caveat and is recorded separately. Order. Alphabetical by generator name.

1A vendor stating where its own mechanism stops

A service card names an invisible watermark on all output and Content Credentials on the later model version. The companion user guide then says a credentials check should indicate the file was generated unless the metadata has been removed. That is a vendor publishing the failure mode of the thing it just described.

No other vendor in this register does it. Two others name a scheme and stop; the organisation behind one scheme publishes what its signal is designed to survive, which is a robustness claim rather than a caveat. The difference is the direction: one says what holds, the other says what does not.

2Why the caveat lands on the outer layer

A credential manifest is attached to the container around the picture, which is what makes it readable by ordinary tools and removable by ordinary handling. A re-encode through an editor is exactly the operation that separates the two, and it is an operation that happens to almost every delivered file at least once.

The same vendor's invisible watermark lives in the picture and carries no published caveat, so the fragile layer is the one with the detail and the durable layer is the thin one. Detail and durability sit on opposite layers, which is a property of where provenance data can be put rather than a choice.

3The second caveat is about handling, not a mechanism

A compliance guide tells publishers to keep whatever content credentials or generation metadata the tool writes and warns that re-encoding can strip that layer. It names no scheme and lists no field, so the file-contents cell on that entry records not documented while the warning itself is kept as a fact.

That is a caveat without a mechanism to attach to, which is the reverse of the first one. Read together they describe the same risk from both ends: a vendor saying its named layer can be removed, and a guide telling publishers that an unnamed layer can be.

4Sources

• Durability
  The user guide adds that such a check should indicate the file was generated unless the metadata has been removedthe vendor's own caveatAmazon Nova user guide, video generation / recorded 2026-09-22
• Metadata
  The guide tells publishers to keep whatever content credentials or generation metadata the tool writes, and warns that re-encoding can strip themdescribed but not enumeratedSceneMixer, compliance guide / recorded 2026-09-12
• Detection
  Content Credentials can be inspected by dropping a generated video into publicly available tools such as Verifya public routeAWS, Amazon Nova Reel service card / recorded 2026-09-22

Every row above is read from the vendor page named beside it, on 2026-09-22. The same values in register form are on the support table, the rule for this column is on the machine-readable marking column page, and what may fill a cell at all is on the what earns a row page. Other findings: the spread of prices, readings that expire.