GateTrue

What each generator documents about marking its output

What survives being re-encoded

Three entries address durability and they split by layer, not by opinion: the in-picture watermark is stated to survive cropping, filters, frame-rate changes and lossy compression, while both entries describing metadata warn that it can be removed. As of 2026-09-22.

Two durability statements that describe different layers of the same fileOne entry states its watermark is designed to survive cropping, filters, frame-rate changes and lossy compression. Another warns that re-exporting through an editor removes the metadata it writes. The two are not in disagreement: they are describing a mark inside the picture and a mark outside it.Inside the pictureOutside the pictureWhat is claimedDesigned to survive crops, filters andcompressionRemoved by a re-exportWhat the claim is worthAs good as the attacks it namesExplicit, which is rarer than it soundsWhat it means for youAn export is unlikely to clear itAn export is likely to clear itTwo layers, not two opinions
Fig. 1 Read as a contradiction these two cancel out. Read as two layers they say something useful, which is that only one of them is meant to survive you.
What each entry publishes about whether its signal survives normal handling. Recorded 2026-09-22.
EntryWhat is publishedDetail
SynthIDDesigned to surviveCropping, filters, frame rate, lossy compression
Amazon Nova ReelCheckable unless removedThe guide says a check works unless the metadata has been removed
SceneMixerWatermark stated to resist compressionThe terms call the invisible layer compression-resistant; the guide warns metadata can be stripped
Everyone elseNot addressedNo durability statement published

Inclusion rule. Entries whose public pages say anything about durability. Silence is recorded as not addressed rather than as fragile. Order. Entries that publish a durability statement first.

1These two are describing different layers, not disagreeing

A watermark embedded in the pixels and a field written into the container behave completely differently under re-encoding. The first has to be attacked to be removed; the second disappears when a tool rewrites the file without copying it across. Both statements can be true at once because they are about different places in the same file.

The reason to put them on one page is that they are routinely quoted as if they were comparable claims about the same thing. They are not, and a reader who merges them ends up expecting metadata to be robust or expecting a pixel watermark to be strippable by a re-export. The agreement between the two metadata entries is the useful part: one vendor warning about an editor and another warning that a provenance check works unless the metadata has been removed are the same warning, written by parties with no reason to volunteer it.

2A durability claim is only as good as the attacks it names

Cropping, filters, frame-rate changes and lossy compression is a specific list, and lists like that describe ordinary handling rather than deliberate removal. Nothing published claims the scheme survives someone trying to defeat it, and reading that in would be inventing a stronger claim than the vendor made.

This site records the list as given. It does not test it, and it does not rank it against anything, because there is nothing else in the record making a comparable claim.

3The practical advice both statements point at

Whatever the file leaves the generator with, an edit suite is where it is most likely to be lost. That is true of metadata for certain, because two of the vendors here say so, and it is the step a production controls rather than the one a vendor does. It is also why an entry that carries both a signal in the picture and a record in the container is in a different position from one carrying only the second.

Which is a workflow observation rather than a finding about products, and it is the only one on this page that applies regardless of which generator was used.

  • 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
  • Robustness
    Designed to stand up to cropping, added filters, changed frame rates and lossy compressionas stated by the vendorGoogle DeepMind, SynthID / recorded 2026-09-12
  • 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

4Sources

Every line is read from the vendor pages listed on the support table, checked 2026-09-22. What earns a row is set out in the protocol. Nearby: Checking a file, At which step, Two marks at once.