I have a video with a watermark moving from right to left only for about 1 minute, i would like to know if its possible to remove it, and if there is any software free or paid to do that
I was thinking some sort of software the analyses the frames and replace only the part of the watermark from the previous frame, since the parts where the watermark passes are stationary
Thanks in advance
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11
If the background is stationary for the entire duration of the watermark it's easy. Just make an image without the watermark and overlay it.
Yes, logos can be obscured, but (and it's a big but) the result is never perfect if the background has any movement.
As for software, take your pick:
You cannot remove a moving watermark.
Also, they are there to protect copyrighted content. I think forum rules prevent discussion about how to violate copyrights.
'....Fair use is the part of copyright law that permits new makers, in some situations, to quote copyrighted material without asking permission or paying the owners. The courts tell us that fair use should be “transformative”–adding value to what they take and using it for a purpose different from the original work.'
'....In fact, the cultural value of copying is so well established that it is written into the social bargain at the heart of copyright law. The bargain is this: we as a society give limited property rights to creators, to reward them for producing culture; at the same time, we give other creators the chance to use that same copyrighted material without permission or payment, in some circumstances. Without the second half of the bargain, we could all lose important new cultural work just because one person is arbitrary or greedy....'
'....In fact, a transformative purpose often underlies an individual creator’s investment of substantial time and creative energy in producing a mashup, a personal video, or other new work. Images and sounds can be building blocks for new meaning, just as quotations of written texts can be. Emerging cultural expression deserves recognition for transformative value as much as more established expression......'
Extracts are taken from: http://cmsimpact.org/code/code-best-practices-fair-use-online-video/
I have no idea what the OP plans for the video or how it is going to be presented to an audience, or for what purpose.
I have to assume, however, that altering a 1 minute video clip is not about to bankrupt the original author,
and may actually lead to a longer, more creative work.
In fact, it might ultimately increase the original author's fan base (assuming a mention in the credits)
In the end, I have to agree with the OP, in that I assume s/he finds (like myself), floating logos are a distraction and need terminating.
Just my personal opinion.
And, as transporterfan says, Fair Use exemptions are made for use of small portions of a copyrighted work.
As jagabo says, if the part where the watermark is used is stationary, it's a simple matter. I do it all the time. Save out a frame, remove the watermark using a clone tool or similar in a picture editor. Or replace the portion with a watermark with the same part of a different frame where the watermark no longer exists. Replace the edited frame (or portions of that frame) and all the others with that watermark. I use the freeware Photofiltre as my photo editor and AviSynth as my replacement program.
Thanks for the fast reply
I guess the image overlay is the most easy way to cover the logo, and btw the file is in mp4, can you suggest a good software to do that ?
about copyrights, i dont intend to share it, i want to remove it, cos its annoying
edit: thanks manono, i only saw you post after i posted, i will try AviSynth
Last edited by Darth_Vader; 22nd Jan 2017 at 13:26.
Normally I don't try to play "copyright police" because I have seen those posts by other people, and they always come across as condescending and supercilious. Perhaps my post did as well.
The only reason I made the post here is that the OP is talking about a moving watermark. I have only seen moving watermarks on material that the owner really wants to protect. To me, it is like a big red flag on the video saying, "don't try to use this, or else ..."
Also, I deal with copyrighted video all the time, usually with the amateur film I transfer. In case you didn't know, licensing fees for "stock footage" go as high as $100/second, usually with a ten second minimum. That's right: $1,000 per clip. I have been fortunate enough to receive this much on a few occasions, and it was for multiple clips. For small uses, the negotiations usually wind up with a figure quite a bit smaller, although still not trivial.
Thus, the amount of money involved, even with a short clip is quite substantial, and if you use footage that was watermarked with the express purpose of stopping you from using it for any other purpose you may find that even if your "opinion" is that video copyright violations are trivial, this will not get you very far in the negotiations (or possible litigation) that follows your misuse.
Of course if you just use it at home, no one will know, and you can do pretty much what you want to do. So if that is the case here, then please ignore both my previous post and this one.
P.S. for removing fixed logos (like network bugs), I use the VirtualDub "Delogo" plugin. It works on both opaque and transparent logos.
Sure, I understand. One thing that makes this place inviting is that one is usually considered innocent until proven guilty, where at Doom9 one used to be guilty until proven innocent. Less so now than in years past. Of course, the site owners have to bend over backwards to make sure they're not 'aiding and abetting' copyright infringement so one always has to be careful.
Me, I deal almost entirely with public domain videos. Ask me how much I like other YouTube channels taking videos from my channels, defacing them with their own ugly logos as if to mark them as their own, and then putting them in their own channels to make ad money from videos on which I worked 40 hours or more to try and improve from the atrocious sources I have for most of them. Not illegal, mind you, but plagiarism and showing an utter lack of respect for the videos to begin with. But then, these aren't honorable people. Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery.
Last edited by manono; 22nd Jan 2017 at 19:02.
I've had four different people use this without permission, and not only used it, but featured it as the main attraction for their channel. Most definitely "not cool."
Last edited by johnmeyer; 22nd Jan 2017 at 22:37. Reason: added last sentence
right to left scrolling wm... taking vids from that xvid streaming site ? and posting where.. desiforum