The Forensic Cost of Watermark Removal

arXiv cs.CV / 4/29/2026

📰 NewsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper argues that evaluating watermark removal only by attack success rate and perceptual quality is incomplete because removals can leave detectable statistical traces.
  • It introduces a new evaluation axis called Watermark Removal Detection (WRD) and shows that a classifier trained on these artifacts can detect watermark removal with state-of-the-art performance at a 10^-3 false-positive rate across tested methods.
  • The authors report that no existing watermark removal attack fully accounts for this “forensic leakage,” meaning current approaches may be stealthy visually but not statistically.
  • When watermarking schemes are benchmarked against common removal pipelines using a three-part evaluation (attack success, perceptual quality, and forensic detectability), the study finds none can simultaneously optimize all three.
  • Overall, the findings establish forensic stealthiness as a necessary requirement for truly effective watermark removal.

Abstract

Current watermark removal methods are evaluated on two axes: attack success rate and perceptual quality. We show this is insufficient. While state-of-the-art attacks successfully degrade the watermark signal without visible distortion, they leave distinct statistical artifacts that betray the removal attempt. We name this overlooked axis Watermark Removal Detection (WRD) and demonstrate that a modern classifier trained on these artifacts achieves state-of-the-art detection rates at 10^{-3} FPR across every removal method tested. No existing attack accounts for this forensic leakage. We benchmark leading watermarking schemes against standard removal pipelines under the extended evaluation triple of attack success, perceptual quality, and forensic detectability, and find that no current method balances all three. Our results establish forensic stealthiness as a necessary requirement for watermark removal.