Two things worth doing before content leaves your library: package it so it arrives in one piece, and mark it so it is identifiable if it travels further than you intended.

Zipping bundles a selection into a single download. Easier for your recipient than a list of separate files, and much harder for one of them to go missing.

Zipping a folder preserves its structure, so what your recipient unpacks is organized the way you had it rather than a flat pile.

Watermarking currently applies to images. Video watermarking is planned but not available yet, so for video you will need another approach for now.

A watermark marks an image as yours and makes it identifiable wherever it ends up. Use it on anything going out for review, on material shared before a licence is agreed, and on anything you would rather not see circulating unattributed.

Watermarking is not access control. It does not stop anyone from doing anything, it makes provenance visible. If you need to control who opens something, that is a portal with password protection, or a link with an expiry.

Until video watermarking arrives, lean on access rather than marking. Share video through a portal with password protection and an expiry date, and require visitor login so the activity log tells you who opened it.

That gives you a record and a time limit, which is a different kind of protection from a watermark but often the more useful one for a review cycle.

Which sharing method should you use covers getting content to people. Controlling who can get into a portal covers the access side.