# A Survey on Robust Video Watermarking Algorithms for Copyright Protection
## 6 Conclusions and Outlook  
### Conclusions  
In recent years, many review papers on video watermarking have been published. Some provide overviews of video watermarking algorithms for specific applications or video watermarking algorithms in specific domains [104; 105]. The workload of these papers is less than that of our paper. Others are reviews of various types of video watermarking algorithms for different applications, like the study of Asikuzzaman and Pickering [106]. Additionally, many image watermarking algorithms and 3D video watermarking algorithms have also been reviewed previously [106]. There are few targeted review papers that focus solely on robust video watermarking algorithms for copyright protection in recent years, so we wrote this paper. The basic models and properties of video watermarking algorithms are introduced first, and the evaluation indexes corresponding to each property are described. Robust video watermarking algorithms for copyright protection are summarized and divided into two categories: original video-based watermarking algorithms and compressed  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Ref.** & [78] & [83] & [85] & [88] & [91] & [97] & [98] \\ \hline PSNR (dB) & 50.89 & 36.33 & [25; 44] & [32; 42] & [32; 50] & [30; 35] & [40; 44] \\ \hline Capacity (bit) & 2080 & 1317 & - & 1680 & 100 bits/1 & - & - \\ \hline BIR (\%) & - & \(\leq\)12.6 & \(\leq\)2.90 & \(\leq\)6.48 & \(\leq\)2.08 & \(\leq\)0.27 & \(\leq\)0.14 \\ \hline Standard & MPEG-2 & MPEG-4 & H.264 & H.264 & H.265 & H.265 & H.265 \\ \hline Robustness & BER & BER & NC & BER & NC & BER & BER \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{attacks} & GF (5 \(\times\) 5) & - & 0.008 & 0.603 & 0.070 & 0.848 & 0.157 & - \\ \cline{2-10}  & GN (0.001) & \(\leq\)0.197 & (0.005) & - & 0.060 & 0.763 & 0.017 & 0.131 \\ \cline{2-10}  & SPN & (0.01) & - & 0.038 & 0.61 & - & 0.877 & (0.001) & (0.001) \\ \cline{2-10}  & (0.02) & - & - & 0.49 & & 0.774 & 0.015 & 0.106 \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Rec} & - & 0.006 & - & 0.044 & 0.812 & 0.074 & 0.070 \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Other attacks the} & MF, FS, FA, & & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{algorithm can resist} & MF, FT, MFG-2, & & & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{and G1d} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{and H.264} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{and G1d} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{and H.264} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{PD, and H.264} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{AF, H.264} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{AF, H.264} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 12: Quantitative comparison of invisibility, capacity, BIR, and robustness of several typical algorithms in compressed domain.  
Figure 8: The research status of robust video watermarking algorithms for copyright protection.  
video-based watermarking algorithms. Original video-based watermarking algorithms are subdivided into watermarking algorithms in the spatial domain and transform domain; and compressed video-based watermarking algorithms are subdivided into watermarking algorithms based on MPEG-2, MPEG-4, H.264, and H.265. The basic information and quantitative estimation results of the performance of some typical algorithms are analyzed and compared. Through Tables 2-12, researchers can easily understand and grasp the embedding methods and performance of these typical algorithms involved in the paper so as to carry out more in-depth research and innovation.