A review watermark - the client's name, the version, or a plain REVIEW in soft text across every frame - is the cheapest security control in post: it costs one Text+ layer in DaVinci Resolve, and it means any cut that leaks carries the answer to "where did this come from" printed on itself. Setup takes two minutes, and the same layer doubles as a version stamp so screenshots always say which cut they came from.
The two-minute setup
1. Add a Text+ layer. On the Edit page, open the Effects library, find Text+ under Titles, and drag it onto a video track above your cut. Stretch it from the first frame to the last so the mark covers the whole export.
2. Write the mark. With the Text+ clip selected, open the Inspector and type the watermark text: the client or project name is the traceable choice ("ACME - REVIEW - v3 - Oct 12"); a bare "REVIEW" is the deterrent choice. Version-plus-date beats version alone - screenshots then self-identify on both counts.
3. Soften it. Drop the opacity until the text reads without competing with picture - around 30-50% works for most footage - and set size and position: centered and large for leak deterrence, corner and small when reviewers need to actually judge the frame. The trade is honest: a big centered mark protects better and reviews worse; a small corner mark does the reverse.
4. Keep it on its own track. Put the Text+ on a dedicated upper track so one track toggle removes the watermark for the clean master export - the mark belongs on review artifacts, never on delivery masters.
5. Export. Any render from that timeline prints the mark into the file. Save the arrangement in your review-export template so every round starts watermarked by default.
Baked-in vs review-link watermarks
The honest split: if your reviewers watch inside a review tool, use the tool's watermark toggle on the link instead - it applies per link, names the recipient when the tool supports dynamic watermarking, and never touches your file (the reasoning and the control set are in why watermark video reviews and the review link anatomy). A baked-in Text+ watermark is for the files that leave the tool: exports attached to emails, QC copies for vendors, festival screeners, anything that might be screenshotted or forwarded. Both together is the normal state for sensitive work - the link watermark covers in-tool viewing, the baked-in mark covers the copies you cannot track.
When to skip it
Watermarks have a real review cost: reviewers judge picture through your overlay, and a heavy centered mark on color-sensitive work (skin tones, gradients) genuinely degrades the pass - the color-approval implications are covered in the color approval workflow. Calibrate to risk: pre-release branded content and unreleased campaign cuts get the full mark; a restaurant's 60-second spot in week two of a normal client relationship probably gets a small corner mark or none. The judgment call is yours; the principle is that the watermark should match the actual leak consequence, not the maximum paranoia available.
FAQ
Does the watermark appear on my final export?
Only if you leave the Text+ track on. Keep the watermark layer on its own upper track, toggle it off (or delete the track) before rendering the clean master, and the delivery file ships unmarked. The review copies keep the mark because those renders happened with the track on.
What should the watermark text say?
The most useful watermark identifies the source: project or client name plus version and date ("ACME - v3 - Oct 12"). A generic "REVIEW" deters but does not trace. If the real risk is a specific recipient leaking, a per-recipient mark (each reviewer's name baked into their copy) is the strongest version of the same idea.
Can clients still review picture quality through a watermark?
Yes at corner-mark opacity - reviewers judge composition, motion, and story fine through a small semi-transparent mark. Centered heavy marks genuinely interfere with color and detail judgment, which is why sensitive-but-craft-critical rounds belong on a review link with a light dynamic watermark instead of a heavy baked-in one.
Should I watermark the review link too, if the export already has one?
For unreleased or high-consequence material, yes - the two cover different paths: the baked-in mark travels with any copy of the file, the link watermark covers every in-tool viewing (and can carry the viewer's identity on tools that support it). Layered marks are the norm on pre-release work, not a redundancy. The full control stack is in what is a video review link.