remove-ai-watermarks/docs/watermarking-landscape.md

# Watermarking landscape (research 2026-05-24)

> Research and signal inventory. Code-facing statements are updated with the
> implementation; dated vendor observations remain snapshots and may change
> independently of the package.

Who embeds what, and whether it is locally detectable (so we know which gaps are fillable). See `identify.py` for what we read.
- **Locally detectable (open decoder, no key/API):** Stable Diffusion / SDXL / FLUX via `imwatermark` DWT-DCT (now covered by `invisible_watermark.py`). FLUX uses the same library (upstream `black-forest-labs/flux2`, file `src/flux2/watermark.py`, 48-bit `0b001010101111111010000111100111001111010100101110`); SDXL is the diffusers `WATERMARK_MESSAGE` (`0b101100111110110010010000011110111011000110011110`). **Caveat: the `imwatermark` dwtDct decode is carrier-fragile on a broad class of real images, NOT just re-encode-fragile, and it is a POSITIVE-ONLY signal.** A clean encode->decode round-trip (no re-encode at all) recovers 48/48 bits on some carriers (random noise, chatgpt-1.png 48/48, firefly-1.png 45/48) but FAILS on many others — verified 2026-06-19 that a *known-embedded* watermark only round-trips 28-39/48 (below the safe `_MATCH_48` = 44 gate, random baseline ~24) on the FLUX fox sample (28), doubao-1.png (39), a 1024² minimalist-flat FLUX image (28), AND a **clean synthetic bright-flat fill with NO watermark at all (28)**. The failure does NOT track texture (firefly lapvar ~11 passes; the flat FLUX lapvar ~56 fails); it correlates with a degenerate decode where the raw bits read **all-ones (48/48 ones)** — which a clean synthetic image reproduces, so **all-ones is a CARRIER ARTIFACT, NOT a watermark signal** (a double-embed test also showed a pre-existing embed does not corrupt a second embed — no interference). Net: trust a `detect_invisible_watermark` hit, but treat a `None`/no-match as **inconclusive** whenever a positive-control embed on the same carrier does not first recover >=44/48. The 44 gate is a deliberate precision choice (lowering it would admit false positives).

  **Root cause and external confirmation (deep-research 2026-06-19, adversarially verified).** This is the SCHEME's ceiling, not our usage — there is no better decoder to adopt. The imwatermark maintainers state verbatim (both the ShieldMnt and Stability-AI READMEs) that the algorithm "cannot guarantee to decode the original watermarks 100% accurately even though we don't apply any attack." Independent measurement (WMAdapter, arXiv:2406.08337 Table 2) puts dwtDct at only **~0.79 bit accuracy on CLEAN images (~38/48 bits — already below our 44 gate)**, collapsing to ~0.50 (chance) under crop/JPEG. Two code-verified + locally-reproduced mechanisms drive the content-dependent failures: (1) the decoder reads each bit as the **highest-magnitude DCT coefficient per block**, so any content coefficient exceeding the encoded target flips the bit; (2) the default embed is in the **YUV chroma channel, which 8-bit-clamps on white/bright pixels** (a +36 chroma delta survives a white-fill round-trip as only +4, ~89% loss) — this is the mechanism behind the bright-flat / minimalist failures and the all-ones degenerate decode. No maintained fork or detector decodes this scheme reliably: the WAVES benchmark (arXiv:2401.08573) relegates DWT-DCT to supplementary appendix G.5 and targets Stable Signature / Tree-Ring / StegaStamp instead; learned encoder/decoder schemes reach ~0.98-0.99 clean but are a DIFFERENT watermark class (not what SDXL/FLUX stamp). `dwtDctSvd` does not help (SDXL embeds `dwtDct`; dwtDctSvd cannot decode it, and its clean accuracy ~0.72 is lower). **Authoritative conclusion: the open DWT-DCT mark cannot be turned from positive-only into a reliable real-world detector; keep it positive-only and rely on C2PA.** (Refuted along the way: that the library is unmaintained, and that it is robust to JPEG but only fails on geometric attacks — both did not survive verification.)

  Consequence for the FLUX hosted-output question (BFL Playground, FLUX.2 [pro] + FLUX.1 [dev], 2026-06-19): all samples carry the signed C2PA manifest (issuer "Black Forest Labs"); the open DWT-DCT decode returned `None`, but every available FLUX carrier (textured fox AND a minimalist-flat generation) failed the positive control (28/48), so the detector is blind on them and **whether BFL hosted output embeds the open pixel watermark is UNRESOLVED** (an earlier note here wrongly asserted it absent — overstated; a later note blamed "high texture" — also wrong, flat carriers fail too). What IS established: C2PA is the reliable FLUX identifier; the `_BITS_48` pattern is correct (round-trips on chatgpt/firefly/random). Resolving the hosted question needs a hosted FLUX carrier that first passes a >=44/48 positive control, which neither a textured nor a flat prompt produced — low priority (the open mark is only a stripped-metadata fallback).
- **C2PA / IPTC (covered by the issuer/marker scan):** OpenAI, Google, Adobe Firefly, Microsoft (Designer + **Bing Image Creator** — collected 2026-05-24; Bing now runs Microsoft's own **MAI-Image** model, signs C2PA as "Microsoft", NOT OpenAI/DALL-E), **Stability AI** (collected from Brand Studio / DreamStudio successor; signs C2PA as "Stability AI Ltd", no SynthID, no imwatermark on its current Stable Image model — issuer added to `C2PA_ISSUERS`), and **Canva** (Magic Media signs C2PA as "Canva" + `trainedAlgorithmicMedia` with a generic `c2pa-rs` claim generator, no SynthID — issuer `b"Canva"` → "Canva (Magic Media)"; verified samples disproved the earlier assumption that Canva downloads always strip C2PA). Still unsampled: Getty, Shutterstock. Midjourney embeds NO C2PA and no invisible watermark (our `mj-*` sample carried only the IPTC tag).

**Samsung Galaxy AI** signs supported edits with C2PA and may carry the
proprietary `genAIType` marker. The registered visible detector covers the
Italian `✦ Contenuti generati dall'AI` bottom-left variant. Removal follows the
same localize-then-fill path as other registered text marks. Other locales and
icon-only variants need separate calibrated silhouettes.

**ASUS Gallery** also signs edited photos as C2PA (`com.asus.gallery`) but with no AI source type — a signer, not an AI marker.

**Black Forest Labs (FLUX)** API output signs C2PA: `claim_generator_info "Black Forest Labs API"` + a `c2pa.ai_generated_content` assertion + `trainedAlgorithmicMedia` (issuer `b"Black Forest Labs"` added to `C2PA_ISSUERS`, platform "Black Forest Labs (FLUX)").

**ByteDance Volcano Engine (Volcengine)** — the cloud behind Doubao / Jimeng — signs its AI image output with a cert from `certificate_center@volcengine.com` + `trainedAlgorithmicMedia` (issuer `b"volcengine"` → "ByteDance (Volcano Engine)", platform "ByteDance (Doubao / Jimeng / Volcano Engine)"); note this is the C2PA-signed surface, distinct from the XMP/PNG TC260 `AIGC` label Doubao also uses. ByteDance's **international brand (BytePlus / Seedream / Seededit)** signs the same content as **"Byteplus Pte. Ltd."**. The bare `volcengine` needle missed it, so BytePlus output was mis-attributed to "Adobe Firefly" through an incidental "Adobe XMP" toolkit string. Issuer `b"Byteplus"` now maps directly to "BytePlus (ByteDance)". ByteDance's consumer app **Dreamina** (the international Jimeng brand) signs as **"Bytedance Pte. Ltd."** with a `Dreamina/x.y` claim generator but, unlike the Volcano Engine surface, ships **no `trainedAlgorithmicMedia`**. Issuer `b"Dreamina"` maps to "ByteDance (Dreamina)" with **`asserts_ai=True`**. Registering the broader **issuer** `b"Bytedance Pte"` was deliberately avoided because that same entity also signs non-AI CapCut edits; keying on the `Dreamina` generator token is precise.
- **EXIF/XMP/PNG-text generator tag (caught by `exif_generator`):** **Ideogram** writes EXIF `Make="Ideogram AI"` (collected 2026-05-24 — no C2PA, no SynthID, no imwatermark; the Make tag is the only signal). Additional verified generator stamps include **NovelAI** (`Software`, `Source`, and `Title` PNG text chunks), **Reve** (`Software` or XMP `CreatorTool` = `reve.com`), and **Aphrodite AI** (`Make` or `Software` = `Aphrodite AI`).
- **xAI / Grok — its own EXIF signature scheme, NOT C2PA (DETECTED by `metadata.xai_signature`, built 2026-05-26).**

Grok JPEG downloads (Aurora model) carry **no C2PA, no XMP, no SynthID, no IPTC** — only EXIF `Artist` = a UUID and EXIF `ImageDescription` = `Signature: <base64>` (a crypto signature, unverifiable locally without xAI's public key). This empirically kills the earlier unverified "xAI signs C2PA as xAI" lead — xAI is not even a C2PA member. `exif_generator` misses it (neither field holds an `AI_GENERATOR_TOKENS` token), so a dedicated detector `xai_signature(path)` matches the pair (`ImageDescription ~ ^Signature: [A-Za-z0-9+/=]{64,}` AND UUID `Artist`); wired into `has_ai_metadata`, `get_ai_metadata` (key `xai_signature`), and `identify` (signal `xai_signature`, platform "xAI (Grok / Aurora)").

**Format confirmed stable across n=3 genuine generations:** exactly three EXIF tags (`Artist`, `ExifOffset`, `ImageDescription`), `Signature:` prefix constant, base64 payload 300-1004 chars. Two capture facts: (a) the `Artist` UUID **equals the public image id** in the asset URL (`https://imagine-public.x.ai/imagine-public/images/<uuid>.jpg`), so it is NOT a private per-user secret — only the `Signature` blob is; (b) the Grok web-UI image is a re-encoded **WebP with no signature** — the EXIF survives only in the *original* JPEG (download button or that public tokenless URL), which is why screenshots / re-encodes are metadata-stripped. A real fixture `data/fixtures/provenance/grok-1.jpg` plus **synthetic** JPEG fixtures (fake UUID + fake `Signature:` blob) cover the detector; never add a real Grok image carrying private content (the repo is public).

**Stripped on removal too:** `remove_ai_metadata` calls `_scrub_ai_exif` on
JPEG EXIF, which deletes the xAI Signature and UUID Artist pair plus supported
AI generator values while retaining unrelated camera and editor EXIF. The
shared `_is_xai_signature_pair` helper is the single source of truth for the
pair. On the ISOBMFF path, `blank_ai_exif_tokens` provides the corresponding
in-place scrub for supported EXIF values, TC260 AIGC blocks, and the xAI pair.
- **China TC260 AIGC label (caught by `AIGC_MARKERS` / `metadata.aigc_label`, surfaced by `identify` as the `aigc` signal):** China-served generators embed an XMP `<TC260:AIGC>{"Label":"1","ContentProducer":...}` block — China's mandatory AI-content labeling (TC260 namespace `tc260.org.cn/ns/AIGC`).

**Doubao** (ByteDance) uses it (verified on a public issue sample; `ContentProducer` `001191110102MACQD9K64010000`, no C2PA/SynthID/imwatermark — the XMP block is the only signal; GitHub attachment upload did NOT strip it). The same standard is mandatory for Jimeng/Kling/Qwen/Ernie etc., so the one marker covers the whole China-AIGC-labeled ecosystem. `aigc_label` reads **four serializations** through a shared `_parse` helper: the HTML-entity-encoded XMP `TC260:AIGC` block in **either RDF form** — the nested element `<TC260:AIGC>{...}</TC260:AIGC>` (Doubao) or the attribute `TC260:AIGC="{...}"` (**PicWish**, `ContentProducer="picwish"`, verified on compatible samples) — via a container-agnostic raw-byte scan (any JSON object accepted), a raw-JSON PNG `AIGC` tEXt chunk (Doubao also writes the label this way, no namespaced marker at all — confirmed on compatible samples, `ContentProducer="doubao"`), a bare raw-JSON `{"AIGC":{...}}` object embedded in **JPEG EXIF (UserComment)** by some China-served generators, brace-matched from the scan head with `json.JSONDecoder().raw_decode` (no namespaced marker, no PNG chunk — confirmed on compatible samples, `ContentProducer="001191440300708461136T1308L"`), **and** a bare `AIGC{...}` blob (the label glued straight to its JSON, no `"AIGC":` key wrapper) embedded in a **JPEG APP segment near the JFIF header** — confirmed on compatible samples. The two raw-JSON forms are scanned in one loop (`'"AIGC"'` then `AIGC{`) that **falls through on a non-TC260 / undecodable hit instead of returning** — a quoted `"AIGC"` can appear later in an XMP packet while the real label is a bare `AIGC{...}` earlier in the file, so an unconditional early return on the quoted form would shadow the bare form (the exact bug behind the 06-10 misses). All three generic forms (the PNG chunk, the bare `{"AIGC":...}` object, and the bare `AIGC{...}` blob) are gated on at least one TC260 field (`_TC260_FIELDS`) so a generic `AIGC` key cannot false-positive; the namespaced XMP element is unambiguous and needs no gate. `_TC260_FIELDS` covers **two schemas**: the producer-side one (`Label` / `ContentProducer` / `ProduceID` / `ContentPropagator` / `PropagateID`, Doubao and most China gens) and the **service-provider** one (`ServiceProvider` / `ServiceUser`, plus generic `Time` / `ContentId` which are NOT gated on) — **Tencent Cloud's** AIGC variant (`ServiceProvider` = `腾讯云`), embedded in **EXIF `ImageDescription`**, verified on compatible samples. In `identify`, `aigc` fires on the parsed label **or** the `AIGC_MARKERS` byte scan (the latter preserves the laundering-tell case where the JSON payload is truncated).
- **HuggingFace-hosted job (caught by `metadata.huggingface_job`, surfaced by `identify` as the `hf_job` signal, MEDIUM confidence):** HuggingFace Jobs / Spaces can stamp generated PNGs with an `hf-job-id` tEXt chunk holding the job UUID. It marks the *hosting job*, not a model, so it lifts an Unknown verdict to a tentative AI via `hf_only` but never overrides a hard metadata signal. `_HF_JOB_CAVEAT` states the limit. Removal drops the chunk through the PNG metadata whitelist.
- **No detectable signal on some downloads:** Recraft exports and some hosted
  FLUX surfaces can arrive without a supported local signal. Midjourney samples
  may carry IPTC metadata but no registered C2PA or pixel watermark. The open
  DWT-DCT decoder only applies when the producing pipeline actually ran its
  encoder and the carrier remains decodable.
- **Invisible but NOT locally detectable (proprietary, API/oracle only — same wall as SynthID):** Amazon Titan Image Generator + Nova Canvas (Bedrock `DetectGeneratedContent` API), Kakao (new SynthID image adopter, May 2026), NVIDIA Cosmos (SynthID video). No local detector possible; treat like SynthID.
- **C2PA 2.4 "Durable Content Credentials" (April 2026; verified against the spec) raise the bar for metadata stripping.** 2.4 defines soft bindings (an invisible watermark or a content fingerprint) plus a server-side manifest repository and a new `c2pa.repository-receipt` assertion. Per the spec: "if a C2PA manifest is removed from an asset, but a copy of that manifest remains in a provenance store elsewhere, the manifest and asset may be matched using available soft bindings." So our local `metadata --remove` deletes the *embedded* manifest, but a fingerprint/watermark soft binding can still re-link the image to its manifest in a repository server-side. Stripping the file is becoming necessary-but-not-sufficient against durable provenance. (Our parsers target the stable embedded-manifest format documented in C2PA 2.1 §11; that format is unchanged in 2.4 -- the new pieces are repository/soft-binding infra, not the on-file box layout, so no parser change is implied.) Spec: https://spec.c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/2.4/specs/C2PA_Specification.html We now READ the soft-binding `alg` (`C2PA_SOFT_BINDINGS` / `soft_binding_vendors_in`) to name the forensic-watermark vendor, and locally DECODE the one open scheme, Adobe TrustMark (`trustmark_detector`); the rest (Digimarc/Imatag/Steg.AI/...) stay name-only (proprietary decoders).
- **Built in the dated batch:** soft-binding vendor detection, IPTC Photo
  Metadata AI-disclosure fields, C2PA detection and stripping for supported
  ISOBMFF video, and the optional Adobe TrustMark decoder. Visible video-logo
  removal and proprietary audio-watermark detection remain outside the package.
  Metadata stripping for supported audio containers is a separate implemented
  path.

**Box detection window — now handled (v0.6.8):** detection no longer relies on a fixed first-MB read. `metadata.scan_head(path, size)` reads the first `size` bytes and, for ISOBMFF, appends the payloads of late provenance boxes found by `isobmff.scan_c2pa_region` (a file-seeking top-level box walker that skips past `mdat` by size without reading it), so a C2PA/AIGC/IPTC manifest placed AFTER a large `mdat` in a streaming/non-faststart MP4 is now caught. Every C2PA/marker byte scan (`has_ai_metadata`, `aigc_label`, `iptc_ai_system`, `synthid_source`, `exif_generator` XMP, `get_ai_metadata` soft-binding, and `identify`) goes through `scan_head`; it is behavior-neutral for non-ISOBMFF inputs (exactly `f.read(size)`).

**Meta-box XMP and EXIF removal are handled in place:** an AI-label XMP packet
stored as a meta-box `mime` item is blanked by
`isobmff.blank_ai_xmp_packets`. Supported EXIF items are handled by
`blank_ai_exif_tokens`. Both paths preserve box sizes and coded media offsets.

For current scope and legal context, see
[scope, safety, and legal notes](legal-and-safety.md). Re-verify legal facts
against primary sources before adding jurisdiction-specific claims.

## 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. Several such CJK text marks are now registered; see [supported signals](supported-signals.md) for the current list. 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.

## Uncovered visible marks: implementation specs (deep-research 2026-07-18)

Compatibility testing showed that TC260-labelled images can still produce no visible-mark
detection. The main causes were a fixed Doubao localization defect and genuinely
uncovered vendors. Verification status is labelled per claim; treat (b)/(c) as leads,
not ground truth.

**GB 45438-2025 clause 5.2, the binding constraint for every Chinese mark (VERIFIED (a) -- full standard text extracted from the TC260-hosted PDF).** Verbatim requirements for an image's explicit label:
- 应采用文字提示 (must be a TEXT prompt);
- must contain BOTH an AI element (`人工智能` or `AI`) AND a generation element (`生成` and/or `合成`);
- 应位于图片的边或角 -- **edge OR corner**, so bottom-right is NOT mandated (Annex C.2's bottom-right figure is a non-normative example);
- 字型应清晰可辨 (legible typeface -- no family named);
- **文字高度不应低于画面最短边长度的 5%** -- glyph HEIGHT >= 5% of the frame's SHORTEST side, with a note defining the shortest side for non-rectangular images.

Two consequences we can exploit: (1) the 5% floor is a **scale prior** -- a compliant CN mark's glyphs are large (>= 51 px on a 1024² image), so a CN silhouette ladder can be anchored at ~5-10% of the short side instead of swept broadly, which should cut false fires; (2) every compliant string shares the tail `AI生成` / `AI合成`, so a shared suffix silhouette plus a per-vendor prefix may beat five independent templates. NOT established: whether 文字高度 means cap height, em box, or rendered bounding box (a ~1.3x spread in template scale). Sources: `https://www.tc260.org.cn/upload/2025-03-15/1742009439794081593.pdf`, parent CAC measure `https://www.cac.gov.cn/2025-03/14/c_1743654684782215.htm` (the CAC text itself specifies no size or corner).

**Alibaba Qwen -- two surfaces that differ (API tier VERIFIED (a)).** Model Studio docs state verbatim that the API adds a `Qwen-Image` watermark 在图像右下角 and 默认值为 false -- so API output is **unwatermarked by default**, and when enabled the mark is a LATIN wordmark, not CJK, and not GB-compliant in wording. The consumer app's `千问AI生成` (bottom-right) is (b) secondary only -- no Alibaba primary page states it. So Qwen needs TWO templates, and its absence is never evidence of a clean image. Source: `https://help.aliyun.com/zh/model-studio/qwen-image-api`.

**星绘 is ByteDance (VERIFIED (a): Baidu Baike + App Store listing, now branded 豆包旗下, team folded into Doubao April 2025).** So `星绘AI生成` is very likely the Doubao house style -- same typeface, same corner, possibly the same top-left `AI生成` pill. Starting from the Doubao `TextMarkConfig` and swapping the two lead glyphs is the cheap path. String/position themselves are (c) inferred.

**Baidu: RESOLVED 2026-07-22, registered (`baidu_engine.py`).** The mark is a white bold "百度" text run + a separate white rounded tag with dark "AI生成", bottom-right -- settled by the TC260 USCC cohort harvest (16 frames, USCC 91110000802100433B), not by web research. Detection keys on the text run only; details in `docs/module-internals.md`.

**Tencent Yuanbao: RESOLVED 2026-07-25, registered (`yuanbao_engine.py`).** The standard mark is a compact two-line italic `元宝` over `AI生成` block at bottom-right. It switches between light and dark strokes with the scene, so detection uses polarity-independent local contrast rather than a white top-hat. The separate one-line overlay variant remains evidence-limited to one example.

**Meta `Imagined with AI` (string VERIFIED (a) from Meta's own newsroom; POSITION NOT VERIFIED).** Sources conflict on placement. Do not encode a corner without a verified sample. `identify` reads the supported IPTC disclosure; it does not decode Meta's proprietary invisible watermark. Source: `https://about.fb.com/news/2024/02/labeling-ai-generated-images-on-facebook-instagram-and-threads/`.

**Samsung English/other locales: still not established.** Samsung's own support page says only that "A Galaxy AI watermark will appear on AI-generated images" -- no string, no corner. Every community thread carrying the exact English string returned HTTP 403 to WebFetch, so the search paraphrase (bottom-left) is deliberately NOT recorded as fact. Feature-tier detail (b): the mark is applied by Generative Edit / sketch-to-image but reportedly NOT by Object Eraser, so Samsung absence is feature-dependent. The four-star icon variant: nothing found.

**The one document that would settle ByteDance placement is BLOCKED.** Douyin's 《抖音关于人工智能生成内容标识的水印与元数据规范》 aims to give AI tools a unified watermark style and position, which would cover Doubao / Jimeng / 星绘 at once. Both mirrors return HTTP 403 to WebFetch; a secondary report (b, unconfirmed) says the watermark is `AI生成` + tool name + company name placed **top-left** -- which would explain the Jimeng pill's top-left position but contradicts the GB annex's bottom-right example. Worth one retry through Chrome MCP with a real browser session.

**No vendor publishes typeface, color, opacity, plate, or margin for ANY of these marks.** The only font-adjacent requirement anywhere is GB's "legible typeface". So each synthetic silhouette's font must be calibrated against corpus positives exactly as the Jimeng pill was; candidate CJK families by platform convention (inference): HarmonyOS Sans / Source Han Sans / Noto Sans CJK SC for Android-origin apps, PingFang SC for iOS-origin.