TrueMedia.org - Deepfake Analysis

Get the full experience

Get a free account to upload audio, video and image files and save history.

Is this Real?

Downloading media

0.0 MB · 0%

An analyst reviewed this: Fake.

Unlikely setting, three identical subjects, and background blur all suggest a high likelihood of AI-generation

Verifiable claim

Automated analysis. Results may not be definitive.

AnalyzedWed, Aug 21, 2024

Detector time45s

File.jpeg157KB

TrueMedia

Media Analysis Report · An open-source research project of Georgetown University

_bOvtYsliW6URN4BPic5XkCCYkg.jpeg

Wed, Aug 21, 2024

Preliminary — analyses are still in progress; the verdict and signal below may change

Low Manipulation Signal

LowManipulation possibility

File: .jpeg · 157KB
Scope: Image
Source: http://truemedia-fileuploads.org/_bOvtYsliW6URN4BPic5XkCCYkg.jpeg/451426327_1010185984095670_7224088077734419517_n.jpeg
Analyzed: Wed, Aug 21, 2024 · 45s
Detector agreement: None completed

Detector	Model	Result

Automated analysis. Results may not be definitive.

TrueMedia · Media Analysis Report — Interpretation

_bOvtYsliW6URN4BPic5XkCCYkg.jpeg

Verdict tiers

Low evidence	Low possibility of manipulation
Conflicting evidence	Moderate possibility of manipulation
Substantial evidence	High possibility of manipulation

Manipulation possibility scale

Low

0–20

Noticeable

20–33

Moderate

33–67

Strong

67–85

Nearly certain

85–100

This analysis: Low manipulation possibility. This reports how strongly the detectors flagged this media — it is not a probability that the media is manipulated. The verdict itself is determined by TrueMedia's vote-based aggregation of detector results.

Methodology

Each detector listed on page 1 independently analyzes the media for signs of AI generation or manipulation. TrueMedia aggregates the detector results into the overall verdict using a vote-based scheme in which trusted detectors carry extra weight; the manipulation possibility shown is a calibrated summary of the detector scores, reported as a strength rather than a probability. In this analysis, 0 of 0 completed detectors agreed with the final verdict.

Cite this analysis

@misc{truemedia2026,
  title        = {TrueMedia: Open-Source Media Manipulation Detection},
  author       = {{Georgetown University}},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://truemedia.georgetown.edu}},
  note         = {Analysis _bOvtYsliW6URN4BPic5XkCCYkg.jpeg}
}