The surging demand for large-scale datasets in deep learning has heightened the need for effective copyright protection, given the risks of unauthorized use to data owners. Although the dataset watermark technique holds promise for auditing and verifying usage, existing methods are hindered by inconsistent evaluations, which impede fair comparisons and assessments of real-world viability. To address this gap, we propose a two-layer taxonomy that categorizes methods by implementation (model-based vs. model-free injection; model-behavior vs. model-message verification), offering a structured framework for cross-task analysis. Then, we develop DWBench, a unified benchmark and open-source toolkit for systematically evaluating image dataset watermark techniques in classification and generation tasks. Using DWBench, we assess 25 representative methods under standardized conditions, perturbation-based robustness tests, multi-watermark coexistence, and multi-user interference. In addition to reporting the results of four commonly used metrics, we present the results of two new metrics: sample significance for fine-grained watermark distinguishability and verification success rate for dataset-level auditing, which enable accurate and reproducible benchmarking. Key findings reveal inherent trade-offs: no single method dominates all scenarios; classification and generation tasks require specialized approaches; and existing techniques exhibit instability at low watermark rates and in realistic multi-user settings, with elevated false positives or performance declines. We hope that DWBench can facilitate advances in watermark reliability and practicality, thus strengthening copyright safeguards in the face of widespread AI-driven data exploitation.

As large language models (LLMs) are trained on increasingly opaque corpora, membership inference attacks (MIAs) have been proposed to audit whether copyrighted texts were used during training, despite growing concerns about their reliability under realistic conditions. We ask whether MIAs can serve as admissible evidence in adversarial copyright disputes where an accused model developer may obfuscate training data while preserving semantic content, and formalize this setting through a judge-prosecutor-accused communication protocol. To test robustness under this protocol, we introduce SAGE (Structure-Aware SAE-Guided Extraction), a paraphrasing framework guided by Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) that rewrites training data to alter lexical structure while preserving semantic content and downstream utility. Our experiments show that state-of-the-art MIAs degrade when models are fine-tuned on SAGE-generated paraphrases, indicating that their signals are not robust to semantics-preserving transformations. While some leakage remains in certain fine-tuning regimes, these results suggest that MIAs are brittle in adversarial settings and insufficient, on their own, as a standalone mechanism for copyright auditing of LLMs.