Free mini-course: five short steps in your browser
Check a photo, video or audio file offered as evidence in 5 stepsthe claim and the file, the original, support outside the file, clues both ways, and a dated record
TimeBinder adds a layer of protection against AI and human fraud and disputes. A five-step routine for a photo, video or audio file offered as evidence that may be generated or edited. Guidance, not legal advice. Progress stays in this browser.
No checker on this page can reliably tell AI from real, and this is guidance, not legal advice. A TimeBind does not show that a file is genuine or fake. The steps are a routine, not a verdict on any one file.
Start the five steps
Each step is short and ends with one or two checks. Your progress is saved in this browser only. Nothing you choose is sent to TimeBinder. The course uses invented examples only, no real person, case or firm, and own-made diagrams.
Your progress is saved in this browser only. Choices stay on this device and are not sent to TimeBinder or tied to your name.
Step 1 of 5. 0 of 5 complete.
Step 1. Name the claim, the file and the path
Photos, videos and audio recordings are offered as evidence in disputes about contracts, employment, family matters, insurance, harassment and more. Before judging whether one looks real, write down three things. The claim is what the file is said to show (who, what, where, when). The file is the exact item you hold: its format, size and name, and whether it is an original or a copy, a screenshot, a forward or a re-saved version. The path is who made it, who passed it on and through which apps or accounts it reached you. Keep the three apart. A convincing file with an unknown path is still an unverified file, and an ordinary-looking file with a documented path can still be wrong. No rule you will read here turns a look or a score into a finding.
Check 1. Match each part to what it means
Tap a part, then tap the meaning that fits it best.
Check 2. A neighbour in an invented dispute sends a 20-second video clip that supposedly shows a fence being damaged
What is the best first move?
Step 2. Ask for the original and for how it was made
Each copy, screenshot, messaging-app forward or re-encode can strip or change details, so ask for the original: the native file from the phone, camera, recorder or account that made it, or the platform’s own export or download. Ask who made it, with what device or app, when, and whether anything was edited, trimmed, enhanced or generated, including by built-in “enhance” or AI tools. Ask for the surrounding material too: the full recording rather than a clip, the messages around it, and the account or device records. A refusal or a vague answer is information, not proof. In the US, courts apply authentication rules that start from a low threshold, such as testimony from someone with knowledge or evidence about the process that produced the file, and rules differ between federal and state courts and between countries, so ask a qualified lawyer what a particular forum needs.
Check 1. Which request is most useful?
Check 2. You were sent a screenshot of a voice-note player instead of the recording
What does that change?
Step 3. Look for support outside the file
The strongest checks sit outside the file. Is there a second, independent source for the same event: another recording, a message, a receipt, a log, a calendar entry, a witness who was there? Do the platform’s or device’s own records agree with the file (for example, an account export or a call log)? Does the content fit the place, weather, light, clothing, language and timeline that other people can confirm? Ask the person who says they made it to describe how they made it, and compare that with what the file shows. For important matters, an independent forensic examiner can examine the original and its handling, and can explain what the examination can and cannot show. Metadata can help, but it is often stripped by apps and can be edited, so treat it as one input. If nothing outside the file supports it, say that it is unsupported rather than that it is fake.
Check 1. Which of these are sound checks outside the file?
Tick all that apply.
Check 2. There is no second source, but the file looks entirely natural
What is the honest description?
Step 4. Clues, both ways: fabrication and false “it is AI” claims
Some clues justify a closer look: no original when a derivative is offered, creation or modification dates that do not fit the story, unexplained edits or compression, gaps in how the file was handled, odd audio or sync, or independent facts that contradict the content. A draft US federal evidence-rule note and the reporter’s memorandum behind it discuss a list of factors much like this, and also warn that factors that raise suspicion now may change quickly as tools change. The reverse problem is real too: a bare claim that a genuine recording is “AI” is not support either, and the same draft note says a broad claim of “deepfake” is not enough on its own. Online AI-detector scores are a clue at most and can be wrong in both directions. This site cannot tell you reliably whether a file was generated, edited or genuine. Say what you found, what you could not find and what would change your mind.
Check 1. A recording’s file dates differ from the date the sender gave
Check 2. The other side says only “that is AI” and offers nothing else
Step 5. Document what you have and decide next steps
Honest outcomes include “supported by an original and independent sources”, “unsupported, so I did not rely on it” and “disputed, passed to a lawyer or examiner”. Write down what you were given, from whom and when, what you asked for, what you checked and what stayed open. Keep the exact files you received without opening and re-saving them, and work on copies. Avoid editing, trimming or converting the only copy. In the EU, the AI Act’s transparency rules for AI-generated or manipulated content (Article 50) are stated by the cited text to apply from 2 August 2026, but a label shows only what its provider or user disclosed, and unlabelled content is not thereby genuine. For anything heading to a dispute, take legal advice before sharing, filing or relying on the file. A TimeBind records that an exact file existed no later than a recorded time, and that a later copy still matches its SHA-256 fingerprint, anchored to Bitcoin. It does not show that a file is genuine or fake, who made it, or that a claim is true. First Pooled TimeBind is free, then from US$5. An ASAP TimeBind is US$15.
Check 1. What can a TimeBind show about a file you were sent?
Check 2. You could not support the file. What now?
You have finished all five steps
Progress stays in this browser. You can revisit any step above. For anything that matters in a dispute or a proceeding, take advice from a qualified lawyer and, where needed, an independent forensic examiner.
How do you check a photo, video or audio file offered as evidence? The short answer
Work through five steps: write down the claim (what the file is said to show), the file (the exact item you hold and whether it is an original or a copy) and the path (who made it and passed it on); ask for the original file or platform export and for how it was made, including whether anything was edited or generated; look for support outside the file, such as independent sources, platform or device records and people who were there; weigh clues such as a missing original, inconsistent dates and gaps in handling as reasons to look closer, and treat a bare claim of “AI” as unsupported too; then record what you received, asked, checked and left open, keep the exact files, and take legal advice before relying on or filing the file.
None of this tells you for certain whether a file was generated, edited or genuine, and an online detector score is a clue at most. A TimeBind of an exact file can show that it existed no later than a recorded time and still matches. It does not show that a file is genuine or fake, who made it, or that its claim is true.
Why this course, in November 2026
Search suggestions checked on 13 November 2026 are strong for this topic: “ai generated evidence in court” returned ten suggestions, including “is ai generated evidence admissible in court”, “ai generated evidence is showing up in court” and “judges are becoming alarmed by ai generated evidence appearing in court”. Suggestions show what people type, not volumes. The legal picture is also moving. As of the sources below, there is no federal US rule of evidence written for deepfakes: a draft Rule 901(c) and a revised Rule 707 are under study by the federal Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, which met on 15 October 2026, and courts continue to apply the existing authentication and expert-reliability rules. State courts and other countries differ. Please check the current position for your forum.
Sources: Recording Law, “Deepfake Evidence Rules Explained: Draft 901(c) and Rule 707” (18 October 2026), Texas AI Law, “Proposed Federal Evidence Rule 707 Returns for Further Study” (11 October 2026) and EU Artificial Intelligence Act, Article 50 (transparency obligations). These are secondary summaries and an unofficial text of the Act. Check the official sources, and a qualified lawyer, for your matter.
This is the thirteenth course in the series. The first, Spot AI fakes in 5 short lessons, is a general introduction, the second, Verify a viral video in 5 steps, is a workflow for any single clip, and Verify a screenshot or fake document covers screenshots and documents. This one is narrower: a photo, video or audio file that someone offers as evidence in a dispute, where the key moves are the original, its path and support from outside the file. It sits beside the AI forgery guide for lawyers under the public guide to protecting yourself from AI forgeries.
What each step can show, and what it cannot
The honest job of this routine is to slow a decision and leave you with notes and questions that a lawyer or examiner can use. It is not legal advice and it does not decide admissibility. See also synthetic media and existed no later than in the glossary.
| Step | What it can show | What it cannot show |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Claim, file and path | What is claimed, what exact item you hold and how it reached you. | That the file is genuine, or that its claim is true. |
| 2. The original | Whether the original, the maker and the way it was made can be produced, and what a copy has lost. | That an original is genuine, or that a copy is fake. |
| 3. Outside the file | Whether independent sources, records and people who were there support the file. | That a file is fake because one source is missing, or real because one confirms it. Each is one input. |
| 4. Clues, both ways | What dates, gaps, edits and odd details suggest. Metadata is often stripped and can be edited. | Truth or authorship. A natural look, a clean-looking file or a detector score settles nothing, and neither does a bare “it is AI”. |
| 5. Document and decide | What you received, asked, checked and left open, and that an exact saved file existed no later than a recorded time, with a later copy still matching its SHA-256 fingerprint. | That a file is genuine or fake, who made it, that a claim is true, or what a court will accept. |
If a file may matter later
If a file could become part of a complaint, a claim or a proceeding, a dated record of the exact files you hold helps:
- Keep exactly what you received, with the message, email or download it came with, and work on copies. Add notes on who sent it, when, what you asked for and what you checked.
- Make a TimeBind of each file. The fingerprint is made in your browser and the file stays on your device. You can later download a Proof of Time Certificate.
- Store the files, the certificates and your notes together. Use the file date and metadata inspector or the file-changed answer to compare a copy later.
First Pooled TimeBind free, no card, then from US$5. An ASAP TimeBind is US$15. A TimeBind does not show that a file is genuine or fake. Whether it helps in a proceeding is for your lawyer and the forum to say.
First Pooled TimeBind free, no card, then from US$5. An ASAP TimeBind is US$15.
What a TimeBind shows, and what it does not. It shows that an exact file existed no later than a recorded time and that a copy shown later still matches its fingerprint. It does not show who made the file, who owns it, that its contents are true, or whether AI was used to make or edit it. This is general information, not legal advice.
Check a photo, video or audio file offered as evidence: FAQ
Can this course tell me whether evidence is AI-generated?
No. No checker on this page, and no tool on this site, can reliably tell AI-generated or AI-edited files from genuine ones. The steps help you ask for the original, look for support outside the file and weigh clues both ways. “Unsupported, so I did not rely on it” is a valid result.
Is this legal advice, or a guide to what a court will accept?
No. It is general guidance on checking a file. Rules on authentication and admissibility differ between federal and state courts, between countries and between kinds of proceeding, and they are changing. Ask a qualified lawyer about your matter.
Is there a US rule of evidence for deepfakes?
Based on the sources cited above, as of October 2026 no federal rule of evidence is written specifically for deepfakes: a draft Rule 901(c) and a revised Rule 707 were still under study. Courts apply existing rules, and states have their own. Check the current position before relying on this answer.
What if the other side just says “that is AI”?
A bare claim is not support, any more than a bare claim that a file is genuine. Ask what the claim relies on, keep the original, and look for support outside the file. Whether and how the objection must be raised is for the forum and your lawyer.
Does a TimeBind show that a recording is real?
No. A TimeBind shows that an exact file existed no later than a recorded time and that a later copy still matches its fingerprint. It does not show who made the file, that it is genuine or fake, or that its claim is true.
Where is my progress saved?
In this browser only, using localStorage. Choices are not sent to TimeBinder and are not tied to your name. Clearing site data, or using another browser, starts the steps again.
Is the course free?
Yes. The five steps and the checks run in your browser at no charge. If you later make a TimeBind, the first Pooled TimeBind is free, then from US$5. An ASAP TimeBind is US$15.
Related guides and tools
- AI forgery guide for lawyersA guide written for legal readers
- Verify a screenshot or fake documentWhen the item is an image of a document or a chat
- Verify a viral video in 5 stepsA workflow for any single clip
- Check a suspicious voice message in 5 stepsWhen the file is audio
- Spot AI fakes in 5 short lessonsThe first mini-course: labels, reverse image search, voice scams and more
- Real or AI? quizPractise on own-made and public-domain images
- File date and metadata inspectorSee what a file’s own details say
Date the exact files you keep
Add a layer of protection against AI and human fraud and disputes: a dated, checkable record of the exact file, kept while you still have it.
- Open the app and sign in with email or Google.
- Add your files. They stay on your computer.
- Seal them and download your Proof of Time certificates.
First Pooled TimeBind free, no card, then from US$5. See pricing.