Verification field guides
AI art or human artwork? Request a useful production record
For an art commission, replace a vague demand to “prove it is real art” with a clear production question. Agree on the role of AI, preserve useful work stages and review the delivered file alongside the artist’s account of how it was made.
Agree on what the commission needs to disclose
Our suggested starting point is a short production note: who made the work, which tools were used, whether generated material appears in the deliverable, and which files will be supplied. Separate reference exploration from material incorporated into the final image. This makes “AI-assisted” a question about a described workflow instead of an accusation based on style.
Do not substitute a credential’s displayed name for that conversation. The Content Authenticity Initiative explains that a displayed exporter can differ from the rights owner. Keep the production note, attribution and any agreed permissions as separate records; this guide does not decide ownership or legal rights.
Sources: Content Authenticity Initiative: Content Credentials: frequently asked questions
Prepare a five-part production packet
The following packet is an original organizational method, not a certification scheme. Ask for proportionate evidence already produced during the job. A complete private project archive is not always necessary; a small agreed set of progress exports and a written explanation may answer the specific question.
Where the artist already uses supported Photoshop features, Adobe documents attaching attribution and editing history through Content Credentials. That can supplement the packet. It should not become a requirement that every artist uses a particular application.
- Brief: save the agreed deliverable and the permitted or excluded uses of generative tools.
- Production note: list the main tools, incorporated source material and disclosed generated elements.
- Work stages: retain a few agreed sketches, progress exports or relevant project views with explanatory notes.
- Delivery: keep the original final export alongside any resized preview or social copy, with clear filenames.
- Review: record which observations match the production note and ask one specific follow-up for each unexplained difference.
Sources: Adobe Photoshop Help: Content Credentials in Adobe Photoshop
Inspect the delivered image without overstating the result
Use the original exported image for supported metadata checks. Saved generator settings are a record found in that file, not an independent measurement of how much of the artwork was generated. If the file has a supported signed credential, inspect the recorded actions and signer separately from editable labels.
C2PA notes that provenance can be incomplete. A sequence of progress files is also supporting material, not an infallible history. If the final JPEG has no readable record, report that observation and ask about the export path. Do not turn missing metadata or an unusual brush style into a conclusion about the artist’s honesty.
Worked example: a painted poster with a generated background
Consider this hypothetical commission. The brief permits a generated background but requires the character to be drawn by the artist. The artist provides an early character sketch, a background export, a later composite and the final poster. The production note identifies the background tool and the subsequent painting and layout work.
Your review should ask whether those supplied stages support the agreed division of work. A generator record in the background file supports that part of the explanation; it does not establish how every stroke of the character was made. A credential on the final export describes supported recorded history, not a percentage of human creativity. An unexplained mismatch should produce a focused question, such as which stage introduced a changed background.
A useful delivery note would say: “Artist reports drawing the character and using a generated background. Supplied stages and background record are consistent with that described sequence; other production steps were not independently observed.” This is our illustrative wording, not the result of an isGenAI investigation of a real artist.
Questions about this case
Can image metadata prove a drawing was entirely made by hand?
No. A file record can support particular production observations, but missing generation settings are not proof of a wholly manual process. Review the artist’s explanation and the agreed work stages.
Should I ask for every layer or the entire project?
Agree on the evidence needed for the commission before delivery. A relevant selection of stages may answer the question without requiring every private project asset.
Does an AI-assisted workflow mean the artist did no work?
That label alone does not describe the contribution. Ask which elements were generated, selected, drawn, repainted, combined or laid out, and compare that account with the supplied stages.
Sources and dates
- Content Credentials: frequently asked questions — Content Authenticity Initiative.
- C2PA and Content Credentials Explainer, version 2.2 — Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity.
- Content Credentials in Adobe Photoshop — Adobe Photoshop Help, 25 August 2026.
Sources checked on 27 September 2026. Linked reporting and official statements establish the attributed facts; the review steps are isGenAI’s analysis.
Put the next question to the file.
Choose the supported tool that fits your question. Keep the original source and save the output with your notes. Frame extraction, file-record inspection and still-image checks answer different questions; none alone authenticates a complete video or its audio.
Our methodology explains supported checks and result limits. Found a factual error or a newer primary source? Use our corrections process and include this article’s URL.