How to check whether an image or video is old

The short answer

check whether an image or video is old

Capture clear frames, reverse-search them, inspect the earliest credible appearance, compare landmarks and weather, and verify whether the accompanying event claim matches the original date and place.

This guide helps verify public political material. It does not infer a person’s motive from one post and does not treat disagreement as proof of deception.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

Why old images and videos matter in Australian political debate

Images and video clips are among the most powerful tools in modern political communication, and also among the easiest to misuse. A photograph of a crowded protest, a video clip of a politician speaking, or footage of a natural disaster can evoke strong emotional responses and spread rapidly through social media and messaging platforms before anyone has verified whether the visual is current, accurately captioned, or even from the country and event it claims to depict. In Australian political contexts, old or misattributed visuals have been used to exaggerate crowd sizes at rallies, to suggest that a politician made a statement they did not make, to falsely link a candidate to an event they did not attend, and to depict conditions or incidents in ways that mislead viewers about their recency or location. The Australian Electoral Commission maintains a disinformation register that documents instances of misleading electoral communications, including cases involving recycled or miscaptioned images. The eSafety Commissioner provides guidance on identifying and reporting online harms including image-based abuse and misleading content. These official resources are useful starting points, but the ability to independently verify visual media is a skill that every politically engaged Australian can develop. It does not require expensive tools or specialised training, just a methodical approach and some basic familiarity with freely available search tools.

Evidence review

Reverse image search: the first and most powerful tool

Reverse image searching is the single most effective technique for determining whether an image has appeared on the internet before and, if so, when and in what context. The process works by uploading an image or providing its URL to a search engine that then finds visually similar or identical images elsewhere on the web. Several free services offer this capability. Google Images allows you to upload an image or paste an image URL and returns results ranked by visual similarity, often including metadata such as the date the image was first indexed and the pages where it appears. Yandex Images and TinEye are alternative engines that sometimes return results not found by Google, and using multiple engines increases the likelihood of finding the earliest known appearance. When you have a video, the first step is to capture several clear, representative frames as still images. Avoid blurry or low-resolution frames. Look for frames that show distinctive elements such as faces, landmarks, signs, clothing with visible logos or text, or unique background features. Run reverse searches on each captured frame separately. If the video is of a political event, pay particular attention to frames showing speakers, banners, crowd composition, weather conditions including visible sky, shadows, and clothing appropriate to the season. The goal is to find the earliest credible appearance of the image. If the image or video is claimed to be from a recent event but reverse search shows it appearing on a website or social media account months or years earlier, that is strong evidence of misattribution. If the image appears only on a single social media account with no earlier or independent source, its provenance is unverifiable regardless of the caption.

Evidence review

Landmarks, weather, clothing and other visual clues

Even without reverse search, a careful inspection of the visual itself can reveal whether it matches the claimed time and place. For Australian outdoor events, vegetation can be a powerful clue. The presence or absence of leaves on deciduous trees, the dryness of grass, and the flowering state of common species such as jacarandas or wattles can indicate the season. If an image claimed to be from a December protest in Melbourne shows trees in full leaf and people in heavy coats, the inconsistency is worth noting. Weather conditions visible in the image can be cross-referenced against Bureau of Meteorology historical data, which is freely available at bom.gov.au. If the image shows clear skies but BOM records show heavy rain at the claimed location and time, the image is either misdated or from a different location. Shadows can reveal the time of day and the approximate latitude, which may be inconsistent with the claimed time or place. Clothing is another useful indicator. If an image shows people wearing clothing with visible branding, logos, or event-specific merchandise such as a t-shirt for a concert or festival with a date, that can pin the image to a specific event. Signs and banners visible in the frame may contain text that identifies the event, the organisation, or the date. Political signs for candidates or parties can be compared against election dates. Electoral signage that is visible in the background may reference a state election that occurred at a specific time, which anchors the image. Architectural details, street furniture, vehicle registration plates and public transport livery can all help identify the location, which can then be checked against the claimed location. These clues are individually modest but cumulatively powerful.

Evidence review

Checking the source: who posted it, when, and with what claim

The credibility of a visual depends heavily on the credibility of its source and the chain of custody from the original capture to the version you are viewing. An image or video posted by a verified news organisation with a byline, dateline and caption is generally more reliable than an anonymous social media account with no track record. However, even news organisations can make errors in captioning, and the fact that an image appears on a reputable news site does not guarantee it is recent if the article itself is about an older event. When you encounter a political image or video on social media, check the account that posted it. Is it a real person with a history of posting? Is the account recently created? Does the account have a pattern of posting politically charged content, or does it post on a wide range of topics? Does the account claim to have captured the image themselves, or are they sharing someone else's content? If they claim to have captured it, do they provide details of when and where? The more specific the claimed provenance, the easier it is to check. A claim that says this was taken today at the Sydney rally is specific enough to be tested against weather, transport disruptions, and other independent contemporaneous records. A claim that simply says look at this with no date, location or attribution is effectively unverifiable regardless of what the image appears to show. The Australian Communications and Media Authority regulates broadcasting and telecommunications and provides information about media standards and complaints mechanisms that can be relevant when visual content is disseminated through traditional media channels.

Evidence review

Video-specific checks: metadata, audio and continuity

Video presents additional verification challenges and opportunities compared to still images. If you have access to the original video file rather than a re-uploaded or screen-recorded version, metadata embedded in the file may include the capture date, device model, GPS coordinates or software used. Metadata can be viewed with free tools and is harder to fake convincingly than a caption, although it can be altered. The absence of metadata is not by itself suspicious because many social media platforms strip metadata on upload. Audio can be a rich source of verification clues. Background sounds may identify the environment, such as traffic noise, public transport announcements, bird calls or weather sounds. Speech in the audio can be checked against known public statements by the person depicted. If the video claims to show a politician making a controversial statement, but a transcript or recording of the full speech shows the statement was taken out of context or edited, the video is misleading even if the clip itself is genuine footage. Video discontinuity, such as jump cuts, inconsistent lighting, or audio that does not match lip movements, can indicate editing that changes the meaning of the original recording. A video that cuts abruptly between a question and an answer may have removed important context or even spliced together segments from different events. If the video is of a public event, look for independent footage of the same event from other sources. Multiple independent recordings that show consistent details are much harder to fake or misrepresent than a single video from an unknown source.

Evidence review

Official Australian resources for reporting and verifying misleading media

Australia has several official bodies that provide resources for identifying and responding to misleading or harmful visual content. The Australian Electoral Commission's disinformation register documents instances of electoral disinformation and explains why each listed item is misleading. It covers images, videos and text claims related to the electoral process, and it is a useful reference for understanding the kinds of visual manipulation and misattribution that have occurred in Australian electoral contexts. The eSafety Commissioner, established under the Online Safety Act, has powers to investigate and act on image-based abuse, cyberbullying and seriously harmful online content. Its website provides practical guidance on identifying misleading content, protecting personal images from misuse, and reporting harmful material to platforms and authorities. The Australian Communications and Media Authority regulates broadcasting, telecommunications and online content, and maintains information about media standards, complaints procedures, and the regulatory framework for content disseminated through traditional and digital channels. These agencies do not fact-check every viral image or video, but their published resources help citizens understand the legal and regulatory context and provide official channels for reporting serious cases. For general political content that does not fall within these agencies' specific remits, independent verification using the techniques described in this article remains the most practical approach.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer