EXIF data means nothing. You can set that to whatever you want. Even having cameras digitally sign photos isn’t perfect, since there’s always the option of a photo of a photo (and with sufficient tech know how, you could probably rig up a camera that takes in arbitrary data so that you could pipe in the target picture with no impact on quality).
Proof of a set is the most reasonable thing to do. That said, it’s pretty sad that someone even has to prove it. I think it’s an indication of how bad the anti-AI paranoia has gotten, such that legit photos can be rejected for merely being… too thematically similar to AI works, I guess?
EXIF data means nothing. You can set that to whatever you want. Even having cameras digitally sign photos isn’t perfect, since there’s always the option of a photo of a photo (and with sufficient tech know how, you could probably rig up a camera that takes in arbitrary data so that you could pipe in the target picture with no impact on quality).
Proof of a set is the most reasonable thing to do. That said, it’s pretty sad that someone even has to prove it. I think it’s an indication of how bad the anti-AI paranoia has gotten, such that legit photos can be rejected for merely being… too thematically similar to AI works, I guess?