Watermark Discussion. - NIGGER MARK N SHIEEET.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

What should we use.

  • Total voters
    1,889
As funny as the whole niggers thing is I really think we should steer clear of it. Throwing that on any piece media automatically condemns it to this site. It's kinda like hacking our leg off to keep someone from stealing our Jordans.
 
dick brain said:
If you want to make it harder for AI or other software to remove the watermark, and if the video is varied enough, you could use a displacement mask:

temp.mp4

This example does a good job of showing the kind of content it is and isn't good for; works well for actual video, not for text/screenshots where the screen is predominantly one or two colors.

How to do it in Vegas:

View attachment 7405463

I don't actually know how well this works at defeating AI, but I would assume it's a lot better than a transparent overlay. I've also read that adding a subtle noise filter to the video will make it a lot harder to remove watermarks, maybe combine both.
Click to expand...
Maybe instead of displacement you should use negative to make screenshots and texts readable at least.
It's one things to put an anti faggot watermark but it's other thing when this watermark makes things unwatchable.
Or you can make it semi-opaque and animated
 
Last edited:
Ralph Barnhardt said:
hacking our leg off to keep someone from stealing our Jordans.
Click to expand...
nah it's more akin to spitting on your drink in front of everyone to ensure no one would steal a sip
A bit unhygienic and tasteless but it gets the job done, and guess what if you still want a sip regardless... I respect that!
 
The Wokest said:
According to the poll the niggermark IS winning.
But it hey, doesn't really matter what the general feel is, archivers and clippers (the people who matter) will decide what they'll use for the stuff they upload, to each their own.

In my case there's 2 takeaways:
  1. I'll die on my niggermark hill
  2. if you don't like the niggermark you're a faggot! So here, maybe a faggotmark is more to your liking:
View attachment 7413196
Click to expand...
What if... We made every other word Nigger
So we have NIGGER FAGGOT scrolling across?
 
S.C.U.D. said:
I would add the kiwifarms.net URL as an integral part of watermarks, advertise the site at the bare minimum. This doesn't exclude other words from appearing either.
Click to expand...
I like this idea more than the nigger one.
 
Ralph Barnhardt said:
As funny as the whole niggers thing is I really think we should steer clear of it. Throwing that on any piece media automatically condemns it to this site. It's kinda like hacking our leg off to keep someone from stealing our Jordans.
Click to expand...
You can post niggermarked videos on other site if you're not a pussy. I think I have already seen the BMJ vid posted
 
Probably An Autist said:
this isnt fuckin CSI or the panama papers we just want to fuck with people. I'd like Null's opinion as its his site (MATI segment pls), but I highly doubt he will invest the time to do it server side, which is what most of your suggestions need. It may also change the definition of section 230 and "publishing"
putting a subtle spinning, flashing nigger in the middle of a juicy clip is a funny way of curbing the soytubers
Click to expand...

This entire proposal is based on implementing a server-side video watermarking function, and not providing a guide or advice or services to client-side content creators who can then upload to the server

Yeah, let's see what Null has to say about that. There are sites and tools to do whatever you need without introducing more server overhead.
 
hell in april said:
You can post niggermarked videos on other site if you're not a pussy. I think I have already seen the BMJ vid posted
Click to expand...
Redditors are SEEETHING over it, but they posted it.
Its a question of moral integrity.
Does their morality supersede their desire to look at and discuss lolcows terminally online?
The answer is no. They don't' really stand for anything and want to gossip while acting offended by it.
 
dumbledore said:
Depends on how it could be done. Worst case scenario, there would be a queue being processed by some vps.
I'm yet to research it, but I think a modern browser could handle something simple like adding an overlay on top of the video, all on the client side.
Click to expand...
You could pretty easily move the ffmpeg stuff onto the server and automate it using a script. Worst case scenario, you'd have to migrate that ffmpeg work to the PHP Imagick library or something.

Only concern is that you'd need to be careful about file sizes and shit like that, ffmpeg can take a while. Depends if the video is being entirely transcoded again.
 
Good spirit, seems like a lotta work though. At some point it becomes easier to just become the video essayist and outdo the sloptubers at their own game.
 
dumbledore said:
Depends on how it could be done. Worst case scenario, there would be a queue being processed by some vps.
I'm yet to research it, but I think a modern browser could handle something simple like adding an overlay on top of the video, all on the client side.
Click to expand...

Unless you can be bothered implementing a JS to force clients to use their GPUs via their browsers, your web server's CPU will have a panic attack.

NSJAP said:
I'm very late on this, but here's my spited out by LLM take on audiomarking with ability to change volume of injected audio.

ffmpeg -i input_video.mp4 -stream_loop -1 -i audio_to_inject.mp3 -filter_complex "[0:a]volume=1[a1];[1:a]volume=0.1[a2];[a1][a2]amix=inputs=2:duration=first[aout]" -map 0:v -map "[aout]" -c:v copy -c:a aac -shortest output_video.mp4

Example:
output_video.mp4
Click to expand...

Can you log the resource usage to do this and refactor for server-side and client-side overhead so we have an idea of how practical this rat brained scheme is.
 
You know if you think about it, the niggermark is actually free advertising because when a faggot youtuber does use a niggermarked clip, they have to spend time prefacing "Don't mind the watermark, kiwifarms does this kind of shit." Then anyone who hears that and thinks based will google kiwifarms and join up.

This way only based non faggots join kf and youtuber goyslop channels have to run the constant risk of losing their channel while simultaneously running advertisement for the site.
 
Probably An Autist said:
Just had a thought

What about niggermarking the audio?

Like have it play keemstar saying nigger at low volume at points in the video or some shit
Click to expand...
What about using extremely high frequency noises to create hidden messages only detectable in audio software like Sneedacity? I'm talking like the kind of shit people do for ARGs. Just one more way to fuck with people in a funny way
Edit: I have found a YouTube video on how to do this
slungus22 said:
yay
output.mp4
View attachment 7409402
Click to expand...
This website is so unfathomably based holy shit
 
Last edited:
CheesyBoy said:
I'm in favor of Kiwimarking most footage, but the particularly juicy footage (such as arrests) should be niggermarked so that anyone who wants to see it has to come here.

We should also add a thread or a poll for new users to share which YouTube channel brought them here.
Click to expand...
You could also make two versions. A public version that's niggermarked, and kiwimarked version posted in one of those purple blocks only viewable if logged in. Now essayist need to advertise they have an account to post the no another armed version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom