Ok, some big fishes in music industry make testing of submitted stuff on watermarks existence...
I don't know if it's true, but some state this according unknown insiders...

So, they state if your name is John Bull then all the VSTi/libraries etc watermarks used in your stuff should be named with John Bull...
and if the names are different, then your stuff is declined with no explanations of their reasons...

Who has an experience or just knowlidge on such a subject, please, share it with us

PS. The stock music sites accept everything, tested (at least Pond5.com)

 

Here's a big company that works for TV and radio, for example, Of course, all this is subject to a fee.
If you want to get an overview: Music Trace - track your Music www.musictrace.de/index.php/products


User "Ekki-LM1" wrote:

The watermark would identify the buyer with the date of purchase, etc., but I don't think that that alone would be enough for the courts to convict. In order to clearly prove that the original buyer is also the actual uploader, other criteria such as IP logs, connection assignment, etc. will certainly have to be presented.

If the watermark technology ever gains acceptance on a broad scale, I trust that the courts will set up hurdles to prevent uncontrolled mass warnings. I mean, all this "DRM stuff" did the industry more harm than good, and so I believe that watermarks in the MP3 sector will not be introduced en masse and if they are, then without major consequences for the user (well, I hope me...).

Quelle: www.computerbase.de/forum/threads/amazon-mp3-eindeutiges-kauf-identifikationsmerkmal.1340181/

 

Last edited: Jan 20, 2023

how should that technically work? eg if you download an update fopr your vsti it is teh same installer for anyone else it is NOT watermarked at all.

 

And there will of course as always be a pushback, in form of an "R2R or V.R rename" app that will help you out

 

To check if anything is watermarked, you have to find someone who bought the same product
and then you compare both. A nice tool for that is WinMerge. It easily identifies differences
in folders & files (you even can compare the content of documents)

If you find differences, there might be a watermark. If it's the same you can be sure that there's nothing.
Plugins are rarely watermarked, DAW's as well, non of mine are till now.

Libraries can be watermarked and most sample packs are - some by an added ID Tag from the
creator, which can be removed easily for any audio/video file or whole folders using MP3Tag
and in the most rare cases, watermarks can be applied using frequencies that can't be heard
but you can see them in a spectometer.



Aphex Twin did that decades ago in his song "Windowlicker" by adding his face.

VR shared a watermarked license with their reFX releases and the customer lost his reFX account for this so don't trust them.
Only R2R is the trustworthy team of both mentioned.

 

Last edited: Jan 20, 2023

An effective measure to provide one's own recordings with additional protection is the so-called "Content ID System".

How Content ID works
Some copyright owners use Content ID, YouTube's automated content identification system, to easily identify and manage their copyright-protected content on YouTube. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en

 

I would say never. Maybe something that uses IRs or wavetables.. never heard of it though

Yes. Agree..

..but

I don't know what you mean (and probably don't understand the Q). Let's take Native Instruments libraries that I own. They are tied to my username (email) and pass. I highly doubt there is my real name in the mark, since I could change it in my account settings.

What if I change my real name IRL then?

Spoiler

(..or my gender, as it's popular nowadays?? )

 

I don't think you would want to store a full name, just store a short identifier.
The same way hundreds of millions of YouTube videos can be uniquely identified by an 11-letter string, like Ah43Nndae3c.
Much more likely to survive EQ, saturation, w/e.

To expand on r4e's post:

You'd need to render out the samples in a DAW and then compare.
That way you'll know if the SAMPLES themselves are clean and stay clean.

If installation archives differ between customers, then some info might be stored in the patch, NKI, metadata or some other place. Uploading the archive might be traceable to the account you bought the product with.

If installation archives are the same for all customers, but you had to authenticate in some form, then you should still check if you get two different renders between two different people. The plugin might burn an identifier into your tracks.

8Dio and Embertone (and some other developers) SAY they watermark their stuff. That could mean samples OR the NKI patch or just the downloaded archive (or nothing at all). Or it could also just mean the watermark says 'Product of Company X', and no personal information is stored.

I think the latter is more likely. A number of companies have re-sold other people's Kontakt libraries as their own in the past.

 

Well, I see most don't follow my thought...
let's see this in details:

you visited embertone.com to hear the demos of their instruments and liked the violin. Then you go to our sister site and find there the same violin, download it and use in your stuff.

Ready tune(s) you send to the music supervisor (for example)...few weeks later supervisor declines your tune
without explanations.
Then you come back to embertone site and see there:

" Watermarked for protection"

don't believe? Go there:

https://embertone.com/instruments/friedlanderviolin.php

Hope, now everybody understands what's its all about: no court, no mp3 (WAV only)...
just your stuff isn't accepted

 

So no more Sylenth Twitter Mob either?

 

A little vinegar will get rid of that pesky water mark, no problem!

 

there seems to be a new business around since some douche woke up to protect its creations at all costs, no dont get me wrong, I'm all for the developers who should live from their creations, but as you can read up, it only makes things worse for anyone who purchase the end product, and you cannot deny that this is now the new business in town, look into games, movies now music and audio ...sorry my rant, I had to say it! hope you understand my point!

 

I remember reading a long ago that watermarks (specifically regarding kontakt libs) were in the instrument files and did not affect the audio at all. So if you handed over stems or full masters to somebody there's no way of detecting wether the software used is legit or not. But if you copy the instrument files and redistributed them, then those files are marked so if the dev ever stumbles upon a pirated copy of the library around, they will know it originated from you and could sue you and shit. It's protection against copy, not usage.

That was a while ago though, don't know if it changed, it probably did.

I was thinking something more like a username number or code, like AS's. So even if you change the name, email, whatever, the code that identifies that account would remain the same. But who knows?

 

And at last the icing on the cake:

https://audiowatermarking.com/customers

If you go there, you'll find Embertone among the clients.

PS. The watermark developer I mentioned isn't a single one on this market

 

Doesn't make it any clearer if the watermark just says 'product of company x' or 'bought by customer #2135761'.

 

Very simple, there are 2 options for you:
- Buy your stuff legally
- Or use illegal software with the risk of being rejected

 

Oh cap, thanks, i didn't know that 2x2=4, but you saved me

 

Last edited: Jan 21, 2023

Just heard the demo of this sample pack on a sister site right now:

Image Sounds Reggae Music

and once heard, immediately understood where it came from...
first, this is my favorite of all time pack: authentic, classy and inspiring
sounds of Reggae...
sec, it was released close to 20 years ago (and still my favorite)
by sample builder veterans:
https://www.ueberschall.com/en/product/28/Reggae-Fundamentals

I went to the "new release" site:

https://www.imagesounds.com/produkt/reggae-music/

and found there a writing:
"All or some samples in this product have already been released in Ueberschall products"

Heck, but what about a copyright in sound recording?

PS. If watermarking existed 20 years ago?

 

Maybe they are the source of the sounds ? and Ueberschall licensed them or the other way around. Have you asked them ?

 

The "Hello World!" thing is BS. It's in the midrange frequencies and it's very, very loud and present. So you can hear that. The image is photoshoped, not watermarkes, in a relative idiotic way.

The Aphex Twin thing is also photoshoped and not real. Also it is relative to the music very loud bursts over the whole spectrum. So hearable. Loud and clear.

This is all fairy tales. Urban legends. There is no watermarking that works in real world. There are some people that try to scare you. Ten years ago or so some company tried to convince it's users, that they could watermark their works "undetectable" and that their watermarks were "indestructible". Turns out, it was a con job to get to the money of their "users". If a watermark is "undetectable" and therefor industructible, how would you find that on the internet? What infrsstructure do you have to have to let you bots search for "undetectable" watermarks?

And: nobody ever has brought prove of any case where watermarking played any role in any court. Imagine a sample company from the U., S. & A. tries to come after you, living in Novosibirsk and having uploaded an experimental piece of ambient to you bandcamp page... good luck!

So this watermark thing is like that Q-bullsh*t and other idiotic conspiracy crap... just that: bullsh*t and crap.