Read the making-of history baked into the file for definitive evidence — not just a pixel guess.
Read the making-of history baked into the file for definitive evidence — not just a pixel guess. Free with no sign-up, and the analysis runs inside your browser — files never leave your device. On our public gate (30 real + 52 AI images) it measured 96.3% at original quality and 91.5% on recompressed copies, with zero real photos confidently mislabelled as AI. Treat it as an indicator, not proof: the newest commercial generators evade every detector.
Read the "provenance" information left inside an image file to find clues about which camera, app or AI created it. It looks at C2PA (Content Credentials) together with the metadata.
C2PA (Content Credentials) is an open standard where cameras, editing programs and generative AI sign into the file "when, with what, and how it was made". Because it is a digital signature it is hard to forge, and when present it lets you verify the creation history with high confidence.
Some generative AI (DALL·E, Firefly) and the latest cameras and editors support this. When a signature explicitly states "AI-generated", it is strong evidence. But many tools still do not add it, so the absence of a signature does not mean "a human photo".
Even without a C2PA signature, EXIF and XMP metadata can reveal the camera model, editing-software name (e.g. Photoshop) or traces of a generation tool. A file with "no camera info at all, only editor traces" is a clue to suspect compositing or heavy editing.
Metadata, however, is easy to strip or alter, so it is not absolute proof. Combining it with the home page's AI detector, which analyses the pixels themselves, makes the judgment far sturdier.
No. Most generation tools still do not embed C2PA. When there is no signature, read it together with the pixel-analysis result.
It is easy to erase or tamper with, so it is only a clue. A C2PA digital signature is far more reliable.