Updated 24 September 2026. A realistic-looking image or video cannot be authenticated by appearance alone. Strange details may prompt a closer look, but they do not reliably prove that media was generated or altered. Use visual clues as a reason to investigate, not as a verdict.
Start with the claim
Write down exactly what the post says happened, where, and when. Separate the image itself from its caption: an authentic older photograph can be recirculated with a false date or description. Avoid sharing or accusing someone while key context is unknown.
Find the source and context
- Look for the earliest version you can find. Search distinctive phrases from the caption and, where available, use a reverse-image search. For video, try a few clear frames as still images.
- Compare the caption, date, location, and crop across copies. A previous appearance may show the media is old or unrelated, but reposts alone do not establish who created it.
- Check whether a named photographer, publisher, eyewitness, or organization has provided the original file or context. Look for independent reporting or records that support the specific event being claimed.
- When a location or event matters, compare visible landmarks, weather, signs, and timing with reliable records. Treat these as leads to verify, since edits and camera conditions can explain differences.
Check provenance information carefully
Some files include Content Credentials or other provenance information about creation and editing. When present, inspect the credential’s signer and the history it records. The C2PA specification explains that provenance information does not decide whether a claim is true, and a file without credentials is not automatically false or untrustworthy. Credentials are useful context, not a substitute for checking the event and source. Read the C2PA guidance for people viewing credentials.
Use detectors and visual clues cautiously
Hands, text, reflections, edges, shadows, compression, and motion can look unusual in genuine media for many reasons. They can also look convincing in generated media. Automated detection results may depend on the file, editing, platform compression, and detector version. Do not treat one odd detail or one detector score as confirmation. If a tool gives a result, check its method, limitations, and the original source.
A careful decision before sharing
- Supported: You found reliable evidence for the specific claim and the source is clear. Share the source and context, not just a cropped image.
- Unclear: You cannot verify it yet. Do not present it as fact; wait for better evidence or leave it unshared.
- Contradicted: Reliable evidence shows the caption or context is wrong. Explain the correction with links to the evidence and avoid repeating the misleading claim more than needed.
For urgent requests involving money or personal safety, contact the person or organization using a number or channel you already know. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission gives similar advice for calls that may use a cloned family member’s voice: verify the story directly through a trusted contact method.
Remember: The aim is not to guess whether a file “looks AI.” Verify who published it, what it is claimed to show, and what independent evidence supports that claim. When that evidence is missing, describe the uncertainty.
Comments
Post a Comment