D-ID publishes a rationale but no mechanism
D-ID's pricing page gives a reason for its watermark: transparency about the synthetic nature of the videos users generate. It names no scheme, field or detection route for the file itself. As of 2026-09-22.
| The reading | What it holds |
|---|---|
| The recorded value | Not documented |
| The vendor's own words | A reason is published for the visible mark; no metadata scheme or field is named. |
| How the reading was taken | Read from a pricing page that states a rationale for the visible mark and nothing about the file. |
Inclusion rule. One row for the value, one for the sentence or absence behind it, one for the method. Nothing here is drawn from output, support replies or coverage by anyone else. Order. Fixed order: the value, then its evidence, then the method.
1A disclosure argument with a visible mark as its whole implementation
The reason given for the mark is disclosure: that there is transparency about the synthetic nature of the videos users generate. Taken seriously, that is an argument about what a viewer should be able to tell, and the implementation offered is a mark on the frame of two plans.
What the pages do not offer is anything a file carries once the mark is gone. Above the marked plans the output has no published disclosure of any kind, so the rationale and the mechanism have different scopes, and the register records the two as separate rows without editorialising about the gap.
2Why this silence is worth a page and eight others are not
Nine grid-read rows record not documented here and most of them raise no argument about disclosure at all. Their silence is consistent: a sales page has no reason to discuss the inside of a file. This row publishes the argument that would motivate a machine-readable signal and then does not mention one.
That inconsistency is the finding, and it is a finding about documentation rather than about the product. A vendor can write provenance data without describing it. What can be said is that a page making a transparency argument is the page where a reader would expect to find a mechanism, and it is not there.
3What a receiving party is left with
A full-screen mark on a trial file is unmistakable, and a clean file from a plan above Lite carries nothing described anywhere. So the disclosure the rationale appeals to works exactly as long as the mark is present, and stops completely when it is removed by the arrangement the same page sells.
Three generators here publish something a recipient can check without the mark being visible, and two of those name a public route for doing it. This row is the clearest case in the register of a disclosure argument that does not reach past the frame.
4Sources
- Machine-readable markingNot documented on the vendor's public pages (as of 2026-09-22)not mentioned on the pricing page
- RationaleThe pricing page gives a reason for the mark: that there is transparency about the synthetic nature of the videos users generatepublished beside the mark
The value above is read from d-id.com, the vendor's pricing page, on 2026-09-22. The whole row for this generator is on its own page, and the rule for what this column may hold is on the machine-readable marking column page. Neighbouring readings: Synthesia, file contents, Luma AI, file contents.