Does G'MIC add a SYNTHID watermark?

Software G'MIC
1

Hey everyone, I’ve commissioned artwork, and the images all come back with a SYNTHID watermark.

The artist claims that this is caused by the G’MIC denoising he used and assures me the images are hand drawn.

I’ve found information that suggest that it could cause artefacts that can trigger ai flags, but that the specific SYNTHID watermark can not be ‘caused’ by the G’MIC denoising.

I’m not an artist not a developer, and have only limited understanding on how G’MIC works. Can anyone with a more intimate knowledge tell me if G’MIC adds a SYNTHID watermark?

Thanks

2

No, we don’t use any tool or library that explicitely add this kind of watermark to the G’MIC processed images (watermark which I just found out about thanks to your post).

If the detector determines that your image was generated synthetically, it is either a detection error or the result of processing by another software program that added this watermark.

The G’MIC source code is public, so ultimately this is something that can be checked if really needed.

1 Like
3

does denoising make sense on that artwork is also an interesting question
if it’s drawn no it doesn’t make sense, 3d render yes but not in G’MIC

4

That’s what I was wondering about as well.

If the artwork was drawn traditionally, and then scanned, there might be some noise present. But, provided a decent scanner was used, would there be enough noise to merit denoising?

And if the artwork was drawn digitally, noise shouldn’t be an issue at all.

So the argument of the artist sounds suspect (to remain polite).

Also, if you commision traditionally drawn artwork, aren’t you supposed to get the actual artwork? (I don’t believe in “limited edition” digital art, that’s just a gimmick to push the price upwards imo).

Just out of curiosity, what’s the probability there is a SYNTID watermark? The lower the value, the higher the chance it actually is an artifact; but a value of 0.9 (90%) or above would make me pose some serious questions (and withhold payment until the issue is resolved).

1 Like
5

Hey everyone, thank you for your replies so far.

To give some context, I have commissions for a bunch of artwork for a TTRPG I’m writing and intend to publish.
As the artists come from all over the globe, high quality digital format delivery is quite normal.

I’ve been very clear to all of them that I don’t really care about their process for creating the artwork, as long as no AI tools are used, either in creating or enhancing the work. Some of them draw ‘analog’ and then send me the scans, this particular one uses a Skrill tablet and then uses Gimp to clean up the image.

When I pointed out that their images contained SYNTHID watermarks, this is the response I got:

Artist: “It’s the g’mic denoiser plugin in gimp that has added the synthid watermarks. Most denoiser are doing it from the research I’ve just done. So open-ai and other AI can learn. The art community is fuming and rightly so.”

However, as far as I understand, SYNTHID is a very robust and specific watermark placed by several image generators to identify the work as created with AI. It’s not a random pattern but a very specific pattern embedded that even survives editing and denoising. According to google, it has a false positives ratio of 0.01.

When I confronted them with this, this is the response I got:

Artist: “I’m pissed my denoiser has done this to my artwork. I’ve removed and deleted them. Denoiser’s can add synthid watermarks if it’s using the open-ai from Google frame work.”

Now I am very willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but I will try and verify. Which is how I ended up here, as I have no idea how G’MIC denoiser works and if it even uses Google framework to create it’s results.

Worst part of it, this artist is a close friend of mine, someone I trust, and I’m very conflicted with the evidence before me and my willingness to them that this external tool has placed these WATERMARKS into their work without their knowledge.

6

That’s total bullshit.

There are several image denoiser included in G’MIC, and I can tell you about a few of them in details if necessary (the ones I wrote). But even for the ones I didn’t write myself, I can tell you that they don’t use external services like Google’s, or even generative AI.

What is the name of the filter your friend claims to have used?

1 Like
7

And now that he has removed that denoiser, he should be able to provide a copy without the watermark…

(Still leaves the question why he needed a denoiser in the first place, on a digital drawing)

8

Could the artist do some of the process again without using the tool that “accidentally” added the watermark?
If it is denoiser, ask they to provide the art without denoising.
If they cannot do it, then this is very weird.

9

If the artist has the original file it will also prove that its human made, Although i do understand if they don’t want to share that with a good reason (nothing related to loosing the file)

10

Thank you all again for giving me more insight in this situation, it’s been a learning experience in any event and your information and questions have helped a lot in drawing my conclusions.

They have refunded me the payment for the artwork and I’m probably going to leave it at that, I will not use any artwork they created in my published work.

They still claim they were not aware their ‘tool’ used AI.

I’m still not sure, even with your professional advice, if I can definitely say ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ they used genAI tools to generate the images or if what they claim holds any truth. I don’t know what the specific plugin was that was used, I only know that it was a G’MIC denoising plugin used in Gimp, so I don’t have enough exact information for you guys to answer.

I realise I’m also reluctant to continue the argument with them, at this point I don’t trust a word they say, so I won’t ask further questions about it of them.

I do realise now after reading your responses that wether or not the use of AI was with or without their knowledge is also mute: can you imagine the fallout I’d have as a publisher claiming ‘no ai was used’ and the book contains SYNTHID watermarks?

At the very least a severe professional mistake was made, and in my opinion that’s enough grounds to sever professional ties.The loss of business for them seems like a logical and justified consequence.

Thank you so very much for your patience, knowledge and advice in this matter.

2 Likes