{"author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Alexander Bock","url":"https://abxk.ai/en/autor/alexander-bock/"},"categories":["AI Security"],"content":{"markdown":"A photo of a flooded harbor goes viral. A voice message from your \"son\" arrives from an unknown number. A video shows a politician saying something shocking. Before you share, pay or react, a few minutes of checking are worth it. You need no special software: most checks work with free search tools and a careful look.\n\nThis is part 5 of Level 1 in our AI Security learning path, the last part of this level. Part 5 of Level 0 explained [what detectors and content credentials can and cannot do](/en/ai-security/learn/can-ai-generated-content-be-detected/). This part turns that knowledge into a routine: six steps for images, audio and video, how much each clue proves and when to hand a case to experts.\n\n## Many fakes need no AI at all\n\nDeepfakes make the headlines, but many false pictures are much simpler. A real photo from another year, another city or another event gets a new caption. Experts call such low-tech tricks **cheapfakes**. Google researchers studied the images in a large sample of published fact checks. AI-generated images were on the rise. Yet simple tricks, above all real images in a false context, still made up the majority when the data collection ended in November 2023 (Source: Dufour et al., \"AMMeBa\", 2024, arxiv.org).\n\nThe tools for AI fakes are easy to reach, too. Our tool comparison alone lists {{\u003c stat \"area\" \"text-to-image\" \u003e}} text-to-image generators, {{\u003c stat \"area\" \"text-to-video\" \u003e}} video generators and {{\u003c stat \"area\" \"text-to-voice\" \u003e}} voice generators in [AI Productivity](/en/ai-productivity/#tools). The routine below helps against both kinds of fakes, because it checks where a file comes from, not only how it looks.\n\n## Six steps for every photo, voice message and video\n\nThe routine has six steps. They work for images, audio and video alike, and the first three often settle the question within minutes.\n\n![Six numbered cards: stop, find the source, reverse search, credentials and metadata, look and listen, check the context; below them a note to share, correct or report and to ask experts in serious cases](/images/learn/en/verify-images-audio-and-video-steps.webp \"Six steps to verify images, audio and video. If in doubt, do not share.\")\n\n**Step 1: stop.** Fakes are made to trigger strong feelings: fear, anger, pity or joy. That feeling is your cue to slow down. Do not share, pay or reply yet.\n\n**Step 2: find the source.** Who posted it first? A repost of a repost is not a source. Open the account and look at its age, its other posts and whether it really belongs to the person or organization it names. A new account with a famous name is a warning sign. For a voice message, the source is the sender: is this a number you already know?\n\n## Step 3: search for older copies\n\nA **reverse image search** uses a picture instead of words and finds where the same or similar pictures appear online. Free options include Google Lens, Bing Visual Search and TinEye. Look for the oldest copy and its original context. TinEye can sort the results by date. In Google, the \"About this image\" view shows when Google first saw a picture and how other websites describe it (Source: Google, 2023, blog.google).\n\nFor a video, take screenshots of a few key moments, such as the first frame, a clear face or a street sign, and search for each one. Journalists often use the free InVID-WeVerify browser plugin, which extracts such key frames automatically.\n\n![A made-up viral post with the caption \"Storm floods the harbor — today!\"; a reverse image search finds a news report from March 2019 as the oldest copy, an archive entry from 2019 and many recent copies](/images/learn/en/verify-images-audio-and-video-reverse-search.webp \"A made-up example: the oldest copy shows that the photo is real, but the caption is false.\")\n\nNo hit proves nothing. A new picture may not be indexed yet, and an AI-generated image has no original photo to find. In that case, the next steps have to carry the weight.\n\n## Step 4: read the file's origin data\n\nMany files carry information about where they come from. **Metadata**, in photos often called EXIF data, can include the camera model, the date and sometimes the location. Most photo apps show it in the image's info or details view. Content credentials, which part 5 of Level 0 introduced, go further. Some cameras and AI tools add them: signed information about which tool made or edited a file. You can check a file for them on the free Verify page of the Content Authenticity Initiative (contentcredentials.org). Google says you can also upload an image to the Gemini app and ask whether Google AI made it. This only covers Google's own tools (Source: Google, November 2025, blog.google).\n\nOrigin data has one big weakness: it gets lost easily.\n\n![Four steps: a camera or AI tool writes origin data into the file, editing apps keep or drop it, many platforms remove it on upload, and a screenshot is a new file without it](/images/learn/en/verify-images-audio-and-video-metadata.webp \"Origin data can get lost at every step. That is why missing data proves nothing.\")\n\nSo the result only counts in one direction. Content credentials that you find are a strong clue about how a file was made. Missing credentials prove nothing, and plain metadata such as a date can be changed with any free photo app. If a picture may come from one of the generators below, you know what to look for: according to the vendors, Gemini adds an invisible SynthID watermark, while Adobe Firefly and ChatGPT add content credentials. We have not tested these claims.\n\n{{\u003c tools \"google-gemini adobe-firefly chatgpt\" \u003e}}\n\n## Look, listen and check the context\n\nSteps 5 and 6 look at the content itself and at the world around it. The table lists clues that you can check with your own eyes and ears. None of them is proof on its own: newer generators avoid many of these mistakes, and real recordings can show similar flaws.\n\n| Medium | Clues worth a look | Why they are weak on their own |\n|---|---|---|\n| Images | Hands, text on signs, reflections, shadows, earrings or glasses that do not match | Newer generators fix many of them; real photos have odd details too |\n| Audio | Missing breaths, odd pauses, flat emotion, names pronounced wrongly, background noise that does not fit | Bad phone lines and compression cause similar effects |\n| Video | Lip sync, blinking, blurry edges around the face and hair, light that changes between frames | Low resolution and short clips hide them |\n\nAs Level 0 showed, people cannot reliably tell fake voices from real ones. And fake voices do not only appear in private scams. In January 2024, voters in New Hampshire received robocalls in which an AI-generated voice imitated President Biden and told them not to vote in the primary election. The US Federal Communications Commission later fined the political consultant behind the calls six million US dollars (Source: FCC, September 2024, fcc.gov). When a voice message or call asks for money or data, do not try to judge the voice. Use the callback rule from [part 1 of this level](/en/ai-security/learn/phishing-in-the-ai-era/): hang up and call back on a number you already know.\n\nThen check the context. Do the date, the place and the weather fit the claim? Compare street signs, shop names, license plates and the language people speak with the place named. Look up the weather records for that day, and check whether the shadows fit the time of day. Search for the event itself: if something big happened, trusted news outlets and official sources will report it, and Google's Fact Check Explorer finds fact checks that already exist. In May 2023, a picture of an explosion near the Pentagon spread on social media, most likely made with AI. Stock prices dipped briefly, and the local fire department confirmed that there had been no explosion (Source: NPR, May 2023). A statement from an official source settled the case, no matter how real the picture looked.\n\nOur guide [How to Spot a Deepfake Video or Image](/en/ai-security/how-to-spot-a-deepfake-video-or-image/) explains the visual clues and the technology of automated detection in more depth.\n\n## How much a clue proves, and when to ask experts\n\nClues differ in weight. One odd detail or a detector score only justifies a closer look. An older copy in another context is a strong hint. Only the original source, the person shown or an expert examination comes close to proof.\n\n![Three columns from weak to strong: weak signals such as one odd detail, a detector score or missing metadata; strong hints such as an older copy or shadows that do not fit; strong evidence such as confirmation by the original source, the person shown or experts](/images/learn/en/verify-images-audio-and-video-evidence.webp \"Weak signals, strong hints and strong evidence. Several weak signals still do not add up to proof.\")\n\nDetector scores sit in the weak column for a reason: they are probabilities, and they fail in both directions. Level 2 explains [how AI detectors work and where they fail](/en/ai-security/learn/how-ai-detectors-work-and-fail/).\n\nSome cases are too important for a check on your own. Hand them over early, and keep the evidence:\n\n| Situation | Who can help | What to keep |\n|---|---|---|\n| A voice or video asks for money or access | Your bank, your company's security team, the police | Messages, phone numbers, payment details and times |\n| A fake shows you or someone you know in an intimate or humiliating way | The platform's report function, the police, a counseling service | Links and screenshots with date and time; do not share the file further |\n| You need the media as evidence, for example in court or for an insurance claim | A lawyer or a forensic expert | The original file, not a screenshot or a forwarded copy |\n| You want to publish or forward it at work | Your communications team, fact-checkers, the original source | A note of every check you made |\n\n{{\u003c callout type=\"try\" \u003e}}\nPick an image that went viral this week. Give yourself five minutes for steps 2, 3 and 6. Find the first poster and run a reverse image search; if the tool allows it, sort the results by date. Then check whether date, place and weather fit the claim. Write down which step settled the question, or what is still open. That note is your answer if someone asks why you did or did not share the image.\n{{\u003c /callout \u003e}}","text":"A photo of a flooded harbor goes viral. A voice message from your \u0026ldquo;son\u0026rdquo; arrives from an unknown number. A video shows a politician saying something shocking. Before you share, pay or react, a few minutes of checking are worth it. You need no special software: most checks work with free search tools and a careful look.\nThis is part 5 of Level 1 in our AI Security learning path, the last part of this level. Part 5 of Level 0 explained what detectors and content credentials can and cannot do. This part turns that knowledge into a routine: six steps for images, audio and video, how much each clue proves and when to hand a case to experts.\nMany fakes need no AI at all Deepfakes make the headlines, but many false pictures are much simpler. A real photo from another year, another city or another event gets a new caption. Experts call such low-tech tricks cheapfakes. Google researchers studied the images in a large sample of published fact checks. AI-generated images were on the rise. Yet simple tricks, above all real images in a false context, still made up the majority when the data collection ended in November 2023 (Source: Dufour et al., \u0026ldquo;AMMeBa\u0026rdquo;, 2024, arxiv.org).\nThe tools for AI fakes are easy to reach, too. Our tool comparison alone lists 13 text-to-image generators, 11 video generators and 13 voice generators in AI Productivity. The routine below helps against both kinds of fakes, because it checks where a file comes from, not only how it looks.\nSix steps for every photo, voice message and video The routine has six steps. They work for images, audio and video alike, and the first three often settle the question within minutes.\nSix steps to verify images, audio and video. If in doubt, do not share. Step 1: stop. Fakes are made to trigger strong feelings: fear, anger, pity or joy. That feeling is your cue to slow down. Do not share, pay or reply yet.\nStep 2: find the source. Who posted it first? A repost of a repost is not a source. Open the account and look at its age, its other posts and whether it really belongs to the person or organization it names. A new account with a famous name is a warning sign. For a voice message, the source is the sender: is this a number you already know?\nStep 3: search for older copies A reverse image search uses a picture instead of words and finds where the same or similar pictures appear online. Free options include Google Lens, Bing Visual Search and TinEye. Look for the oldest copy and its original context. TinEye can sort the results by date. In Google, the \u0026ldquo;About this image\u0026rdquo; view shows when Google first saw a picture and how other websites describe it (Source: Google, 2023, blog.google).\nFor a video, take screenshots of a few key moments, such as the first frame, a clear face or a street sign, and search for each one. Journalists often use the free InVID-WeVerify browser plugin, which extracts such key frames automatically.\nA made-up example: the oldest copy shows that the photo is real, but the caption is false. No hit proves nothing. A new picture may not be indexed yet, and an AI-generated image has no original photo to find. In that case, the next steps have to carry the weight.\nStep 4: read the file\u0026rsquo;s origin data Many files carry information about where they come from. Metadata, in photos often called EXIF data, can include the camera model, the date and sometimes the location. Most photo apps show it in the image\u0026rsquo;s info or details view. Content credentials, which part 5 of Level 0 introduced, go further. Some cameras and AI tools add them: signed information about which tool made or edited a file. You can check a file for them on the free Verify page of the Content Authenticity Initiative (contentcredentials.org). Google says you can also upload an image to the Gemini app and ask whether Google AI made it. This only covers Google\u0026rsquo;s own tools (Source: Google, November 2025, blog.google).\nOrigin data has one big weakness: it gets lost easily.\nOrigin data can get lost at every step. That is why missing data proves nothing. So the result only counts in one direction. Content credentials that you find are a strong clue about how a file was made. Missing credentials prove nothing, and plain metadata such as a date can be changed with any free photo app. If a picture may come from one of the generators below, you know what to look for: according to the vendors, Gemini adds an invisible SynthID watermark, while Adobe Firefly and ChatGPT add content credentials. We have not tested these claims.\nGoogle Gemini (Nano Banana)Text-to-Image · AI at the coreGoogle\u0026#39;s assistant; generates and edits images with the Nano Banana models. Adobe FireflyText-to-Image · AI at the coreAdobe\u0026#39;s generative AI for images and video, built into Photoshop, Premiere and other Creative Cloud apps. ChatGPT (GPT Image)Text-to-Image · AI at the coreOpenAI\u0026#39;s assistant; creates and edits images from a text prompt in the chat. Short descriptions from our tool comparison, based on the vendors' information — not tested by ABXK.\nLook, listen and check the context Steps 5 and 6 look at the content itself and at the world around it. The table lists clues that you can check with your own eyes and ears. None of them is proof on its own: newer generators avoid many of these mistakes, and real recordings can show similar flaws.\nVerify Images, Audio and Video Step by Step Medium Clues worth a look Why they are weak on their own Images Hands, text on signs, reflections, shadows, earrings or glasses that do not match Newer generators fix many of them; real photos have odd details too Audio Missing breaths, odd pauses, flat emotion, names pronounced wrongly, background noise that does not fit Bad phone lines and compression cause similar effects Video Lip sync, blinking, blurry edges around the face and hair, light that changes between frames Low resolution and short clips hide them As Level 0 showed, people cannot reliably tell fake voices from real ones. And fake voices do not only appear in private scams. In January 2024, voters in New Hampshire received robocalls in which an AI-generated voice imitated President Biden and told them not to vote in the primary election. The US Federal Communications Commission later fined the political consultant behind the calls six million US dollars (Source: FCC, September 2024, fcc.gov). When a voice message or call asks for money or data, do not try to judge the voice. Use the callback rule from part 1 of this level: hang up and call back on a number you already know.\nThen check the context. Do the date, the place and the weather fit the claim? Compare street signs, shop names, license plates and the language people speak with the place named. Look up the weather records for that day, and check whether the shadows fit the time of day. Search for the event itself: if something big happened, trusted news outlets and official sources will report it, and Google\u0026rsquo;s Fact Check Explorer finds fact checks that already exist. In May 2023, a picture of an explosion near the Pentagon spread on social media, most likely made with AI. Stock prices dipped briefly, and the local fire department confirmed that there had been no explosion (Source: NPR, May 2023). A statement from an official source settled the case, no matter how real the picture looked.\nOur guide How to Spot a Deepfake Video or Image explains the visual clues and the technology of automated detection in more depth.\nHow much a clue proves, and when to ask experts Clues differ in weight. One odd detail or a detector score only justifies a closer look. An older copy in another context is a strong hint. Only the original source, the person shown or an expert examination comes close to proof.\nWeak signals, strong hints and strong evidence. Several weak signals still do not add up to proof. Detector scores sit in the weak column for a reason: they are probabilities, and they fail in both directions. Level 2 explains how AI detectors work and where they fail.\nSome cases are too important for a check on your own. Hand them over early, and keep the evidence:\nVerify Images, Audio and Video Step by Step (2) Situation Who can help What to keep A voice or video asks for money or access Your bank, your company\u0026rsquo;s security team, the police Messages, phone numbers, payment details and times A fake shows you or someone you know in an intimate or humiliating way The platform\u0026rsquo;s report function, the police, a counseling service Links and screenshots with date and time; do not share the file further You need the media as evidence, for example in court or for an insurance claim A lawyer or a forensic expert The original file, not a screenshot or a forwarded copy You want to publish or forward it at work Your communications team, fact-checkers, the original source A note of every check you made ▸Try it\nPick an image that went viral this week. Give yourself five minutes for steps 2, 3 and 6. Find the first poster and run a reverse image search; if the tool allows it, sort the results by date. Then check whether date, place and weather fit the claim. Write down which step settled the question, or what is still open. That note is your answer if someone asks why you did or did not share the image.\n","words":1620},"date":"2026-10-14","description":"A practical routine for suspicious photos, voice messages and videos: source, reverse search, origin data, visual and audio clues, context and expert help.","image":"https://abxk.ai/images/cover/verify-images-audio-and-video.webp","json":"https://abxk.ai/en/ai-security/learn/verify-images-audio-and-video/index.json","kind":"page","language":"en","learning_path":{"category":"ai-security","level":1,"level_name":"Beginner"},"modified":"2026-10-14","related_tools":["Google Gemini (Nano Banana)","Adobe Firefly","ChatGPT (GPT Image)"],"section":"ai-security","tags":["verification","deepfakes","reverse-image-search","content-credentials","media-literacy"],"title":"Verify Images, Audio and Video Step by Step","translations":[{"json":"https://abxk.ai/de/ai-security/learn/verify-images-audio-and-video/index.json","language":"de","url":"https://abxk.ai/de/ai-security/learn/verify-images-audio-and-video/"}],"url":"https://abxk.ai/en/ai-security/learn/verify-images-audio-and-video/"}