Before your company shares an internal recording with a new audience, decide what the recipient needs to see and which identifiers should be removed. A town hall, training session or recruitment clip may contain faces, names on slides and spoken details that need separate attention.
Medianonymizer processes uploaded video with configurable redaction options. It can help prepare a copy for review, but completion of a job does not certify that the video is anonymous or that its distribution is lawful. Start with a clip that represents the material you intend to share.
Define the purpose of the new cut
An internal recording and a public careers-page clip can have different audiences and purposes. Ask the person responsible for the footage to assess that reuse before sending a file to an agency or publisher. Identify the passages the new audience needs, trim the rest and decide whether anyone should remain recognisable.
The EDPB guidance on video devices discusses lawful processing and disclosure. Removing faces alone does not resolve those questions. Voices, badges, slides and context may still identify someone. Use the guidance and your organisation's review process to decide what the proposed distribution requires.
Choose the processing options
Upload the edited recording and check the settings offered for that file. Video options include faces, license plates, on-screen text and audio handling. These controls have different purposes; do not assume that enabling one enables them all. In particular, license-plate processing is optional.
Review the detected faces and choose which detected identities should be redacted. The list of detections is not proof that everyone in the recording was found. Small faces, brief appearances, profiles and occlusions deserve attention in the resulting video. Where a scene cannot be made suitable for the intended audience, remove it or use another editing step before release.
Inspect the export before approval
Open the downloaded result, not only the preview. Watch the full cut and step through scene changes or passages that looked difficult in the source. Check what remains visible around each redacted area. Clothing, location and an introduction by a presenter may still identify a person whose face is covered.
Listen to the audio. Confirm that details you intended to remove have been handled and that the edit still communicates what the audience needs. Inspect names on slides and captions separately. If you add subtitles, a title card or a description after processing, include them in the final check: they can add identifying information back into the published version.
A rendered visual edit does not provide a universal guarantee against re-identification. Judge the complete release, including information the recipient may already have. Where an unresolved identifier matters to the purpose, correct the file or hold publication until the responsible reviewer has made a decision.
Record what was checked
Keep a note identifying the source, the edited cut, the options used and the export that was approved. Add the review date, reviewer and any follow-up edits. Store that record and the relevant files according to your organisation's retention and access policies.
This review record is more useful than an unsupported statement that all faces were removed. It lets a colleague locate the exact version and understand the decision. It is not a certification or a substitute for the controller's obligations. Do not retain an unnecessary duplicate simply to make the record look more complete.
Hand the approved file to the publisher
Give the publishing team a clearly labelled copy and the intended use. Keep the original separate to reduce accidental sharing of unedited footage. If an agency adds overlays, captions or a new audio track, review those changes before publication as well.
Check current pricing and the site's data-handling terms before uploading corporate material. The final decision to share belongs to your organisation; the product provides processing and review tools for that decision.
When you need this
An internal town-hall recording is being edited for a public careers page. The reviewer identifies the relevant scenes and decides which visible or spoken identifiers need redaction before approving the new cut.
The compliance angle
External reuse needs an assessment of purpose, lawful basis, recipients and remaining identifiers. Face pixelation alone does not establish anonymity or GDPR compliance; consult the linked EDPB guidance and the responsible reviewer.
What you can verify
No measured detection coverage or legal certification is claimed for this scenario. Evidence to retain for a real job includes the source and export versions, settings, dated human review and any unresolved identifiers.
Frequently asked questions
No. Redaction is one control. Remaining identifiers, the purpose, lawful basis, recipients and retention still need assessment.
