Recent diffusion models have advanced image-conditioned video generation, but their accessibility raises risks of unauthorized manipulation. Image immunization has emerged as a promising defense for Image-to-Video (I2V) protection, yet existing methods often rely on degrading visual quality or temporal coherence. In this work, we revisit I2V immunization as reducing source-content preservation, shifting the focus from output degradation to weakening source-conditioned content propagation. To this end, we propose I2V-DETACH, an image immunization method that prevents unauthorized I2V generation through source grounding detachment. I2V models preserve source content by propagating source-image cues into video latents during denoising. Accordingly, I2V-DETACH disrupts this process in two complementary ways: it suppresses source-video grounding to reduce source cue propagation, and strengthens intra-video interactions to shift denoising toward video-side dynamics with reduced reliance on the source image. To obtain informative optimization signals, we initialize auxiliary video latents with source-oriented states that remain within the source-conditioned generation regime while deviating from source-preserving trajectories. Extensive experiments across diverse diffusion architectures show that I2V-DETACH substantially reduces source-content preservation, improves over prior immunization methods, and exhibits strong black-box transferability.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Goal of I2V-Detach against diffusion-based I2V generation. Unlike prior baselines that often result in temporal degradation or fidelity reduction, source grounding detachment objective directly drives video generation that no longer faithfully preserves visual content of source-image.
Figure 2: Illustration of the framework of I2V-Detach . Source grounding detachment is achieved by two complementary losses; source-video decoupling and intra-video coupling . Jointly optimized with progressively source-divergent video frames, I2V-Detach drives denoising video latents away from source-bound constraints, disrupting source-content preservation in generated videos.
Figure 3: Frame- and token-level attention visualizations from a single denoising pass using video latents generated from the clean source image. In the frame-level attention maps, we highlight the most attended video tokens, with their corresponding spatial regions marked on the clean frame. (a) shows the result for the clean source image, while (b) shows the results for immunized images obtained by different methods.
Figure 4: Qualitative results for our method across diverse diffusion-based I2V architectures Yang et al. () ; HaCohen et al. (2024) ; Zheng et al. (2024) . Regardless of the underlying model, our method consistently produces visually detached videos.
Model
CogVideoX
LTX-Video
OpenSora 1.2
Method
Space
V/P
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
AQ
IQ
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
AQ
IQ
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
AQ
IQ
Clean
-
-
97.28
94.83
89.17
60.46
70.03
97.12
94.22
81.04
57.85
67.60
95.73
95.17
87.30
56.95
66.10
EditShield Chen et al. (2024b)
RGB
✗/ ✗
95.97
93.77
86.09
60.72
65.41
92.63
86.85
69.62
51.04
57.04
86.39
88.98
70.08
53.52
62.64
AdvPaint Jeon et al. (2025)
RGB
✗/ ✓
93.27
89.90
78.42
57.11
63.64
93.87
90.33
73.24
54.43
59.18
84.47
83.39
58.80
48.92
56.10
I2VGuard Gui et al. (2025)
RGB
✓/ ✓
94.39
92.52
82.99
58.65
63.39
94.10
89.67
73.37
54.47
61.08
92.20
92.68
77.68
56.10
62.19
Ours
RGB
✗/ ✗
86.39
80.63
65.54
57.87
66.76
89.85
81.98
60.88
50.35
58.51
79.62
73.92
52.10
48.95
52.38
Table 1: White-box performance on CogVideoX Yang et al. () , LTX-Video HaCohen et al. (2024) , and OpenSora 1.2 Zheng et al. (2024) . Space denotes the perturbation domain used for optimization. V/P denotes that methods require a pre-generated video and prompt during perturbation optimization, respectively. * refers to the variant that incorporates purification-aware optimization. The best score is shown in bold and the second-best is underlined .
Model
CogVideoX
LTX-Video
OpenSora 1.2
Method
ES
AP
IG
AI
Ours
ES
AP
IG
AI
Ours
ES
AP
IG
AI
Ours
Src. Ref. ↓
4.34
3.33
4.13
4.33
1.46
2.46
2.99
4.09
3.06
1.49
3.76
2.94
4.04
3.86
1.64
Pro. Ass. ↑
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.27
4.12
0.85
0.20
0.85
0.45
2.65
0.32
0.90
0.22
0.27
3.27
Ovr. Eff. ↓
4.10
2.50
3.05
4.00
1.35
2.25
3.30
4.45
3.60
1.40
4.00
2.10
3.95
3.55
1.40
Table 2: Human evaluation results. We evaluate each method in terms of Source Reflection (Src. Ref.), Protection Assessment (Pro. Ass.), and Overall Effectiveness (Ovr. Eff.). ES, AP, IG, and AI denote EditShield Chen et al. (2024b) , AdvPaint Jeon et al. (2025) , I2VGuard Gui et al. (2025) , and Anti-I2V Vu et al. (2026) , respectively.
Target Model
JPEG Guo et al. (2018)
Gaussian noise
Adverse Clean Diaz (2025)
GridPure Zhao et al. (2024b)
Method
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
EditShield Chen et al. (2024b)
94.95
92.74
84.37
96.03
94.19
86.55
95.30
93.81
84.84
96.30
94.36
87.00
AdvPaint Jeon et al. (2025)
94.42
92.30
83.17
94.14
96.03
86.55
95.49
94.28
85.66
95.53
93.50
85.48
I2VGuard Gui et al. (2025)
93.69
92.29
82.38
94.19
92.72
82.85
94.66
93.10
83.26
94.55
93.12
83.27
Ours
90.21
86.11
74.26
87.57
81.85
67.54
90.31
86.09
73.62
91.18
86.12
74.81
Anti-I2V* Vu et al. (2026)
93.33
92.32
83.08
92.92
92.56
82.22
94.23
92.88
84.49
93.39
92.47
83.25
Table 3: Robustness evaluation against transformation and diffusion-based purification techniques. * refers to the variant that incorporates purification-aware optimization. The best score is shown in bold and the second-best is underlined .
Target Model
LTX-Video
OpenSora 1.2
Method
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
AQ
IQ
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
AQ
IQ
EditShield Chen et al. (2024b)
94.42
91.23
77.72
53.09
62.52
94.86
94.51
84.51
54.85
63.07
AdvPaint Jeon et al. (2025)
94.67
91.41
76.02
53.93
62.30
94.69
94.28
83.46
54.93
62.99
I2VGuard Gui et al. (2025)
93.82
91.29
76.36
53.35
61.95
93.26
94.08
81.02
54.80
61.84
Anti-I2V Vu et al. (2026)
92.57
90.21
74.25
54.17
62.97
93.74
94.55
82.33
58.63
63.44
Ours
92.06
88.26
72.30
51.23
60.28
92.62
93.58
79.07
54.56
59.35
Table 4: Transferability evaluation on LTX-Video HaCohen et al. (2024) and OpenSora 1.2 Zheng et al. (2024) . CogVideoX Yang et al. () is used for victim model. The best score is shown in bold and the second-best is underlined .
Model
CogVideoX Yang et al. ()
LTX-Video HaCohen et al. (2024)
OpenSora 1.2 Zheng et al. (2024)
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
EditShield
31.54
0.779
0.174
0.210
31.55
0.786
0.388
0.181
31.43
0.778
0.400
0.232
AdvPaint
33.06
0.831
0.166
0.162
33.15
0.840
0.357
0.171
32.14
0.829
0.403
0.234
I2VGuard
30.72
0.743
0.229
0.172
29.99
0.723
0.340
0.146
30.36
0.744
0.388
0.193
Anti-I2V
28.66
0.727
0.237
0.207
32.55
0.843
0.387
0.171
25.14
0.628
0.387
0.191
Ours
33.49
0.848
0.155
0.139
33.48
0.853
0.320
0.145
32.61
0.837
0.397
0.214
Table 5: Imperceptibility comparison with baselines. The best score for each metric within each model is shown in bold .
Category
Metric
ES ( 8/255 )
AP ( 6/255 )
IG ( 8/255 )
AI ( 8/255 )
Ours ( 6/255 )
Imperceptibility
LPIPS ↓
0.400
0.377
0.388
0.387
0.354
DISTS ↓
0.232
0.193
0.193
0.191
0.187
Performance
IS ↓
86.39
88.08
92.20
91.64
82.92
SC ↓
88.98
86.03
92.68
91.97
77.62
DS ↓
70.08
66.81
77.68
77.33
56.51
Table 6: Protection performance on OpenSora 1.2 under matched imperceptibility (DISTS ≈ 0.19). AdvPaint Jeon et al. (2025) and I2V-DETACH are re-optimized using a perturbation budget of 6/255 .
Method
Image-specific
UAP-variant
Clean
ES Chen et al. (2024b)
AP Jeon et al. (2025)
IG Gui et al. (2025)
AI Vu et al. (2026)
Ours
ES Chen et al. (2024b)
AP Jeon et al. (2025)
IG Gui et al. (2025)
AI Vu et al. (2026)
Ours
IS ↓
97.28
95.97
93.27
94.39
93.13
86.39
96.32
95.58
95.37
95.08
93.31
SC ↓
94.83
93.77
89.90
92.52
92.42
80.63
94.45
94.01
92.74
93.87
91.74
DS ↓
89.17
86.09
78.42
82.99
82.34
65.54
87.57
85.73
86.43
85.77
83.54
Table 7: Protection performance of image-specific methods and their universal variants. Lower values indicate stronger protection. ES, AP, IG, and AI denote EditShield Chen et al. (2024b) , AdvPaint Jeon et al. (2025) , I2VGuard Gui et al. (2025) , and Anti-I2V Vu et al. (2026) , respectively.
Figure 5: Qualitative ablation for the proposed two loss functions on CogVideoX Yang et al. () .
Method
Lsvd
Livc
Lsvd + Livc
Video
Unrelated
Related
Unrelated
Related
Unrelated
Related
Rand
Black
Source
SDV
Rand
Black
Source
SDV
Rand
Black
Source
SDV
IS ↓
95.29
95.06
92.83
91.83
90.09
89.39
90.38
89.31
89.75
89.14
88.45
86.39
SC ↓
91.59
90.98
90.49
87.49
85.80
85.07
86.50
85.37
84.41
84.23
83.54
80.63
DS ↓
83.16
82.55
80.93
78.24
74.77
73.03
75.32
72.37
72.62
72.60
70.78
65.54
Table 8: Ablation studies for the losses and video frames. Black , Source , and Rand denote repeated black frames, repeated source frames, and random noisy latents at the corresponding timestep, respectively, while SDV denotes the proposed source-divergent video.
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Screenshots of the conducted human evaluation.
Attention
Clean
ES
AP
IG
AI
I2V-Detach
Source-video
0.087
0.085
0.090
0.080
0.063
0.015
video-video
0.666
0.671
0.637
0.679
0.660
0.710
Appendix
Table 9: Quantification of attention mass on CogVideoX ( Yang et al., ) . Source-video attention mass is measured between video queries and source keys, while video-video attention mass is measured among video-side tokens.
Attention
Clean
ES
AP
IG
AI
I2V-Detach
Source-video
0.083
0.073
0.076
0.081
0.075
0.051
video-video
0.917
0.927
0.924
0.919
0.925
0.949
Appendix
Table 10: Quantification of attention mass on LTX-Video ( HaCohen et al., 2024 ) .
Attention
Clean
ES
AP
IG
AI
I2V-Detach
Source-video
0.237
0.220
0.282
0.246
0.233
0.178
video-video
0.763
0.780
0.718
0.754
0.767
0.822
Appendix
Table 11: Quantification of attention mass on OpenSora 1.2 ( Zheng et al., 2024 ) .
Table 18
Method
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
Latency(sec)
Ours-P
88.72
83.42
70.73
475.94
Ours-I
86.30
80.18
64.65
1,344.50
Ours*
86.39
80.63
65.54
620.72
Appendix
Table 14: Ablation study on source-deviated video latent optimization strategies. Ours-P denotes pre-optimized source-divergent video latents, Ours-I optimizes all F−1 tail latents independently, and Ours* optimizes a single source-deviated tail latent and replicates it across the remaining positions.
Figure 7: Ablation study on timestep sampling. As the sampled timestep range becomes larger, immunization performance degrades.
Videos
Source
Trans.
Gen.
Gen.+G.
SDV
IS ↓
88.45
88.12
87.49
87.96
86.39
SC ↓
83.54
83.07
82.54
82.56
80.63
DS ↓
70.78
70.09
67.43
67.30
65.54
Appendix
Table 15: Effect of video latent construction variations.
Surrogate Model
LTX-Video
OpenSora 1.2
Target Model
CogVideoX
OpenSora 1.2
CogVideoX
LTX-Video
Metric
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
EditShield
95.02
93.31
85.22
93.78
93.29
81.82
94.52
94.31
84.29
93.32
90.73
75.52
AdvPaint
94.74
93.65
84.63
94.28
94.42
83.00
93.38
93.03
81.84
92.03
90.05
72.10
I2VGuard
96.64
94.21
88.13
95.61
95.18
87.06
94.31
93.27
83.20
92.93
91.19
75.34
Anti-I2V
96.68
94.52
88.24
95.44
94.84
85.95
92.69
91.83
82.03
92.11
90.73
74.48
Appendix
Table 16: Additional black-box transferability evaluation on LTX-Video HaCohen et al. (2024) and OpenSora 1.2 Zheng et al. (2024) .
Model
Luma Ray
Wan2.1-14B
Method
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
IS ↓
SC ↓
DS ↓
Clean
95.52
94.72
83.55
97.28
96.20
92.37
EditShield
93.90
92.84
79.92
95.19
95.95
88.25
AdvPaint
94.39
93.52
81.60
95.39
96.19
88.70
I2VGuard
93.79
92.87
79.53
94.59
95.65
86.85
Anti-I2V
93.75
90.99
81.52
93.90
95.46
85.38
Appendix
Table 17: Transferability evaluation on commercial and large-scale models.
Figure 8: Qualitative comparison with baselines on CogVideoX Yang et al. () .
Figure 9: Qualitative comparison on LTX-Video HaCohen et al. (2024) .
Figure 10: Qualitative comparison on OpenSora 1.2 Zheng et al. (2024) .
Figure 11: Qualitative comparison with baselines on CogVideoX Yang et al. () .
Figure 12: Qualitative comparison with baselines on LTX-Video HaCohen et al. (2024) .
Figure 13: Qualitative comparison with baselines on OpenSora 1.2 Zheng et al. (2024) .
Figure 14: Qualitative results for black-box scenario on LTX-Video HaCohen et al. (2024) . CogVideoX Yang et al. () is used for victim model.
Figure 15: Qualitative results for black-box scenario on OpenSora 1.2 Zheng et al. (2024) . CogVideoX Yang et al. () is used for victim model.
Figure 16: Failure case visualization. Ours and Ours-R denote the proposed method without and with loss reweighting, respectively.
Image-to-video (I2V) generation has the potential for societal harm because it enables the unauthorized animation of static images to create realistic deepfakes. While existing defenses effectively protect against static image manipulation, extending these to I2V generation remains underexplored and non-trivial. In this paper, we systematically analyze why modern I2V models are highly robust against naive image-level adversarial attacks (i.e., immunization). We observe that the video encoding process rapidly dilutes the adversarial noise across future frames, and the continuous text-conditioned guidance actively overrides the intended disruptive effect of the immunization. Building on these findings, we propose the Immune2V framework which enforces temporally balanced latent divergence at the encoder level to prevent signal dilution, and aligns intermediate generative representations with a precomputed collapse-inducing trajectory to counteract the text-guidance override. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Immune2V produces substantially stronger and more persistent degradation than adapted image-level baselines under the same imperceptibility budget.
Zeqian Long, Ozgur Kara, Haotian Xue +2
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Georgia Institute of Technology
Advances in diffusion-based video generation models, while significantly improving human animation, poses threats of misuse through the creation of fake videos from a specific person's photo and text prompts. Recent efforts have focused on adversarial attacks that introduce crafted perturbations to protect images from diffusion-based models. However, most existing approaches target image generation, while relatively few explicitly address image-to-video diffusion models (VDMs), and most primarily focus on UNet-based architectures. Hence, their effectiveness against Diffusion Transformer (DiT) models remains largely under-explored, as these models demonstrate improved feature retention, and stronger temporal consistency due to larger capacity and advanced attention mechanisms. In this work, we introduce Anti-I2V, a novel defense against malicious human image-to-video generation, applicable across diverse diffusion backbones. Instead of restricting noise updates to the RGB space, Anti-I2V operates in both the Lab* and frequency domains, improving robustness and concentrating on salient pixels. We then identify the network layers that capture the most distinct semantic features during the denoising process to design appropriate training objectives that maximize degradation of temporal coherence and generation fidelity. Through extensive validation, Anti-I2V demonstrates state-of-the-art defense performance against diverse video diffusion models, offering an effective solution to the problem.
Image-to-video (I2V) diffusion models can animate a single reference image into high-quality, subject-consistent videos, posing threats of misuse as anyone can turn personal photos into fabricated videos without consent. A promising solution is to proactively add an adversarial perturbation to the image before release, such that videos generated from it would be unfaithful or visually corrupted. However, due to an insufficient understanding of what governs how subsequent frames read the reference image in modern I2V models, existing protections struggle to offer strong protection under common perturbation budgets. In this paper, we approach the problem by exploring this underlying reading mechanism. Through a convex geometric analysis, we theoretically identify the spread of the reference value vectors as a key factor governing this reading process, and empirically find that even a mild contraction of this spread can severely degrade the generated video, making it an efficient lever for protection. Guided by this insight, we propose LETHE, a novel protection method that directly disrupts this reading process. LETHE pairs two complementary objectives, where a value collapse objective drives the reference value vectors toward uniformity, while an attention attraction objective draws subsequent frames toward these collapsed tokens to amplify corruption. We further construct two human-centric I2V protection benchmarks and conduct extensive experiments with multiple modern I2V models, which demonstrate the state-of-the-art protection performance and versatility of LETHE.
Boheng Li, Yueming Xing, Yiming Li +2
Nanyang Technological University · Wuhan University · SiliconProspect AI