If Facebook already embeds user IDs in images (AI or no AI) I can only drool to think what kind tracking, advertising and mass surveillance opportunities are coming.
InsideOutSanta 6 hours ago [-]
I don't see anything about watermarking in the linked article, it's about labelling requirements. It describes situations where you are required to disclose if an image was AI-generated.
N19PEDL2 7 hours ago [-]
How can a watermark be unremovable?
43 minutes ago [-]
embedding-shape 7 hours ago [-]
The actual rules don't say that I think, it's more about the intention that the watermark is embedded with the image/multimedia itself, so it's persisting even if someone "right-click > save" the image or takes a screenshot, not literally regulated the watermark has to be unremovable.
> (Summary) The icon should be directly embedded into the deep fake or published text (except for creative works), unless equivalent alternatives are available such as a user interface overlay. The icon must be visible when content is reshared or downloaded.
charcircuit 6 hours ago [-]
It says the icons are optional. So that icon must not be what the other person was talking about.
embedding-shape 6 hours ago [-]
> It says the icons are optional. So that icon must not be what the other person was talking about.
What "watermark" are they talking about if not the label/icons? The label/icon in question are what the whole "EU Icons for labelling AI-generated content" thing is about, someone correct me if I'm having a big brain fart.
Ohentis 4 hours ago [-]
I imagine the goal is for everything to use something like Google's synthid.
embedding-shape 4 hours ago [-]
That sounds like one possible implementation, not the goal per se. The goal (the explicit/stated one at least) is to give people a heads up what's AI generated vs not, when that's unclear.
itake 8 hours ago [-]
A watermark is not just “transparency.” It can reveal what tool someone used, how they work, or that an image came from a stigmatized platform. In sensitive contexts—politics, sexuality, medical issues, protest material, or private expression—that can become surveillance.
When generative AI can create such good fake images a valid c2pa linked to the source camera will become mandatory for an image to be considered authentic.
hparadiz 1 hours ago [-]
Another reason to drop both iOS and Android.
RobotToaster 7 hours ago [-]
No android version?
itake 6 hours ago [-]
Still working on it...
I'm waiting on Apple to approve the MacOS version. After I will either focus on removing SynthID (currently not supported) or releasing android.
richardfey 9 hours ago [-]
This is a great statistical analysis and it was a pleasure to read, but I wasn't expecting the claims to be so poorly supported.
There's also a reply from one of the Meta authors there, worth checking out.
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-icons-l...
If Facebook already embeds user IDs in images (AI or no AI) I can only drool to think what kind tracking, advertising and mass surveillance opportunities are coming.
> (Summary) The icon should be directly embedded into the deep fake or published text (except for creative works), unless equivalent alternatives are available such as a user interface overlay. The icon must be visible when content is reshared or downloaded.
What "watermark" are they talking about if not the label/icons? The label/icon in question are what the whole "EU Icons for labelling AI-generated content" thing is about, someone correct me if I'm having a big brain fart.
I am working on Saigon Watermarks: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/saigon-watermark/id6777061197 for detecting and removing provenence markers in AI.
The tool also removes c2pa markers, which google is now linking the device that took the photo with the photo.
scary stuff.
https://security.googleblog.com/2025/09/pixel-android-truste...
I'm waiting on Apple to approve the MacOS version. After I will either focus on removing SynthID (currently not supported) or releasing android.