Solo founder building ClipStudios.AI — launching on PH this Saturday
Hey PH! 👋
I'm Abhineet, a solo founder based in Almere, Netherlands.
I'm building ClipStudios.AI — an AI video platform bringing 15+ models (Kling, Veo 3.1, Runway, Seedance, Wan, and more) under one credit-based subscription. The core idea: stop juggling five different AI-video tools with five different logins and credits that vanish every month. Credits here roll over, every video is C2PA-signed for verifiable provenance, and the infrastructure is GDPR-native, built for Europe.
I've been in the PH community for a couple weeks now warming up, and genuinely enjoying the discussions here — this has been one of the more thoughtful maker communities I've been part of.
Launching publicly this Saturday, July 25th. Would love to connect with other founders here, especially anyone who's building in AI/creative tools or has been through a PH launch before. Happy to return the favor and check out what others are building too.
Looking forward to being part of this!
Replies
Welcome, and good timing to be asking before Saturday rather than after.
C2PA signing is the third thing in your list and I think it is the only one a competitor cannot copy by Q4. Fifteen models behind one subscription is an integration sprint. Rolling credits is a pricing decision. Signed provenance is a commitment you hold on every render forever, which is why almost nobody offers it.
The question I would want answered before Saturday: does the signature survive an edit? Most people trim the clip, add captions, or re-encode before it goes anywhere. If the chain breaks at that step then it only proves provenance for a file nobody publishes, and the moment you actually need it is the moment it is gone.
@abdullah_javaid3 Really sharp question — appreciate you asking this before Saturday rather than after.
Short answer: our original signing (the initial render) has always produced a valid, conformant C2PA manifest — we're an officially certified generator, Max Assurance Level 1 on the C2PA Conforming Products List.
But you were right to push on the edit case specifically. I am glad to tell you that trimming or editing in our own image and Video Tools keeps the manifest correctly embedded.
Genuinely appreciate the push — this is a better product for it, and a more honest answer to give heading into Saturday than I could have given two days ago.
@abhineetarora That covers the edit case inside your own tools, which is the half you control.
The half you do not is where the clip actually goes. Trim in CapCut, caption somewhere else, then upload to a platform that recompresses on ingest. If the manifest does not survive that path, verifiable provenance is true of the file on your servers and not of the video anyone actually sees.
Worth having that answer ready before Saturday, because it is the first thing a sceptic in your launch thread will reach for.
@abdullah_javaid3 You hit the nail on the head — this is exactly where the rubber meets the road for C2PA across the entire digital ecosystem right now.
You're 100% right: if a user exports our video into CapCut, trims it, and re-encodes it, that strips the file-level C2PA manifest. We can't force third-party apps to support the ecosystem yet — nobody can, this is true industry-wide, including Adobe and OpenAI's own C2PA implementations.
Because of exactly this gap, file-level metadata alone isn't enough long-term. We're exploring a layered approach on top of it: invisible pixel-level watermarking (so origin survives even after metadata is stripped) and a fingerprint-based lookup so we can help verify an edited file's origin even without the manifest intact. The verification/re-signing piece specifically needs real security scrutiny before we'd trust it ourselves — a probabilistic match shouldn't casually issue a fresh cryptographic signature without careful review, so that's a "get it right" problem, not a "ship it fast" one.
No fixed date I'm willing to commit to publicly yet — I'd rather tell you honestly this is real, active thinking than promise a quarter and risk not delivering.
@abhineetarora Watermarking and the manifest are the same kind of claim. The fingerprint lookup is not.
A manifest travels with the file, so a stranger checks it without asking you anything. A fingerprint lookup is a call to your service, which means the verifier has to trust your answer and trust that you are still there to give it. That is a weaker thing to stand behind the word verifiable, and it is what a sceptic reaches for the moment you mention it.
I ship apps into networks slow enough that anything needing a round trip fails in exactly the conditions we never tested, so still up is not a small assumption to me. Can the fingerprint result be checked by someone outside your company, or does it only exist as your yes?