docs: fold visible-mark + detection-method research into watermarking-landscape

Deep-research 2026-07-10 (adversarially verified): the Gemini sparkle is
tier-gated (visible on Free/Pro, absent on Ultra/AI-Studio/API; no official
visible-mark detector or published glyph spec); the faint-visible-mark
precision/recall wall is fundamental (learned CNN front-end does not cleanly
separate true/false, arXiv:1705.08593 refuted); learned detectors need large
synthetic-composite datasets + carry off-distribution risk; landscape adds
Meta bottom-left + Samsung star-icon variants; China GB 45438-2025 is the
strongest visible-mark mandate.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/watermarking-landscape.md

@@ -42,3 +42,13 @@ Grok JPEG downloads (Aurora model) carry **no C2PA, no XMP, no SynthID, no IPTC*
 - **Regulatory driver (context, not a code change):** AI-content labeling mandates are expanding, which pushes more generators toward exactly the C2PA + watermark signals we read. The full per-jurisdiction table lives in README "## Legal" -- keep it there, not duplicated here. Newly added + primary-source verified 2026-05-26: **EU AI Act Article 50** machine-readable marking applicable **2026-08-02** (verified against the article text); **South Korea AI Framework Act Art. 31(3)** in force since **22 January 2026** (verified via Kim & Chang + FPF/Korea Times; Enforcement Decree accepts an invisible-watermark label); **California AB 853** (amends the CA AI Transparency Act) latent-disclosure duty operative **2026-08-02**, requiring a disclosure "permanent or extraordinarily difficult to remove" (verified against the leginfo bill text -- this is the exact disclosure our tool strips); **India IT Amendment Rules 2026** in force **2026-02-20** (verified via Chambers), which prominently-label + permanent-provenance-id all synthetic media AND **expressly prohibit removing/suppressing the label or metadata** -- the first major all-content removal ban outside China.
 
 **Removal liability (README "## Legal" disclaimer):** the tool is lawful general-purpose software; liability sits with the remover and is intent-gated -- downstream acts (fraud/deception/IP), plus US DMCA 17 USC 1202 (removing copyright-management info to conceal infringement), plus the removal-as-such bans in China + India. When extending the README table, verify each date/article against the statute/bill text before committing, not against search summaries.
+
+## Visible AI-generation marks + detection methods (deep-research 2026-07-10, adversarially verified)
+
+**Google Gemini visible "sparkle" -- tier-dependent, and spec-undocumented by Google.** Google primary sources (the Nano Banana Pro blog and the gemini.google image-generation page, both WebFetch-verified) confirm Gemini images carry BOTH the invisible SynthID (on ALL Google-AI media) AND a visible sparkle, but the visible mark is **tier-gated**: applied for FREE and Google AI **Pro** users, and **REMOVED** for Google AI **Ultra** subscribers, inside **Google AI Studio**, and on **API / dev** output. So a Google-C2PA image with NO visible sparkle is expected (Ultra / API), not evidence it is clean -- this reinforces the `identify` "no visible mark != clean" rule. The ONLY official verifier is the SynthID flow (upload to the Gemini app, ask if it is AI-generated), which reads the INVISIBLE mark; there is **no official visible-sparkle detector**, and Google publishes **no** glyph geometry / size / opacity / color / locale / placement spec. So our capture-based sparkle template is the only source of truth and cannot be validated against a vendor spec -- keep reverse-engineering from real captures (do not expect a published spec).
+
+**The faint-visible-mark precision/recall wall is fundamental, not a heuristic artifact.** The visible-watermark-detection literature has moved to LEARNED segmentation / object-detection (WDNet WACV'21 arXiv:2012.07616; SLBR ACM MM'21, open code+weights; the PRCV'18 large-scale detector; Su et al. survey 2025), but three verified findings bound what a learned detector actually buys: (1) a claim that a confidence threshold "cleanly separates" true from false matches even with a learned CNN front-end was **REFUTED** in verification (arXiv:1705.08593) -- the precision/recall wall persists even with learned features. (2) Learned detectors need a LARGE, pattern-diverse labeled dataset trained on synthetic composites (PRCV'18: 60k images / 80 watermark classes; CLWD: 60k / 160 marks), and off-distribution degradation is a documented real axis (models trained on limited-pattern LVW transfer worse; diversity of training patterns drives generalization). (3) Inference is cheap (WDNet ~8 ms at 256x256) -- the cost is the data pipeline, not runtime. Net: a learned detector shifts the frontier but does NOT remove the wall; for a SINGLE mark the cheapest next step is a small patch classifier (real-sparkle vs false-positive) on top of the existing NCC localizer, not a full segmentation model. SLBR is a ready baseline. The current NCC + false-positive gate (core-ring brightness margin + gradient-NCC crispness + white-core saturation) is a sound operating point, and the residual miss is the information-theoretic wall the literature confirms.
+
+**Visible-mark landscape beyond the registry.** Meta stamps a visible "Imagined with AI" mark (bottom-LEFT, a small symbol) on its OWN Meta AI / "Imagine" output; for third-party images it relies on C2PA / IPTC, not a visible mark. Samsung Galaxy AI additionally uses a **four-star icon** variant in a corner alongside the localized text wordmark `samsung_engine` calibrates (only the Italian text variant is covered) -- the icon is a distinct, uncovered variant. Every source agrees visible + metadata marks are trivially removable (crop / screenshot, ~2 s), which is the tool's premise.
+
+**Regulatory driver -- China GB 45438-2025 is the strongest VISIBLE-mark mandate.** The CAC / TC260 "Measures for Labeling AI-Generated Synthesized Content" (issued March 2025, **effective 2025-09-01**, technical standard **GB 45438-2025**, building on the TC260 Aug-2023 practice guide) MANDATE a **visible** label for AI images -- a visible textual mark whose height must be **>= 5% of the image's shortest side** -- plus the metadata (implicit) label. So every major Chinese platform now ships visible "AI生成"-style text marks (we cover Doubao / Jimeng; expect more CJK-text marks under this driver). By contrast EU AI Act Article 50 mandates only the MACHINE-READABLE mark (enforceable 2026-08-02, grace to 2026-12-02); a visible label is proposed and modality-specific (visible for images) but is NOT a hard "fixed icon" mandate -- a claim that Art 50 requires a clearly-visible fixed icon for images was refuted in verification. Primary-source dates verified against the article/standard text, not search summaries.