#FactCheck: AI-Generated Video Falsely Shared as Real Footage of a Baby Elephant Being Rescued from a Railway Track
Executive Summary
A video is being shared on social media showing a baby elephant apparently trapped in a railway track. In the video, its leg can be seen stuck between the tracks, while a train appears to be approaching. The video further shows rescuers using a hydraulic machine to remove part of the railway track and safely free the baby elephant. CyberPeace Research found that the viral claim is false. Our research found that the video is AI-generated and is being shared on social media with a false and misleading claim.
Claim:
A user on Facebook shared the video claiming that an elephant’s leg got stuck in a railway track, following which people risked their lives to safely rescue the animal. The post link, archive link and screenshot are provided below.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/992948767150505
Fact Check
During our research, we conducted a reverse image search of different keyframes from the viral video. However, we did not find any credible media report or other authentic source related to the incident. However, during our research, we found some social media posts featuring the same video. These posts have labelled the video as AI-generated content.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TCQ2n6LDr_Q
We then scanned the viral video using the Hive Detect tool. According to the tool’s analysis, the video was identified as potentially AI-generated with an 89% score.
At the end of our research, we also examined the video using the AIorNot tool. According to its analysis, the visuals in the video were identified as AI-generated with a 91% probability.
Conclusion
Our research found that the video being shared on social media does not depict a real incident. During our research into the source and context of the video, we found no credible information supporting the claim. Furthermore, an analysis of the video using AI detection tools also confirmed that it is AI-generated.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary:
A widely circulated claim on social media indicates that six soldiers of the Assam Rifles were killed during a retaliatory attack carried out by a Myanmar-based breakaway faction of the United Liberation Front of Asom (Independent), or ULFA (I). The post included a photograph of coffins covered in Indian flags with reference to soldiers who were part of the incident where ULFA (I) killed six soldiers. The post was widely shared, however, the fact-check confirms that the photograph is old, not related, and there are no trustworthy reports to indicate that any such incident took place. This claim is therefore false and misleading.
Claim:
Social media users claimed that the banned militant outfit ULFA (I) killed six Assam Rifles personnel in retaliation for an alleged drone and missile strike by Indian forces on their camp in Myanmar with captions on it “Six Indian Army Assam Rifles soldiers have reportedly been killed in a retaliatory attack by the Myanmar-based ULFA group.”. The claim was accompanied by a viral post showing coffins of Indian soldiers, which added emotional weight and perceived authenticity to the narrative.
Fact Check:
We began our research with a reverse image search of the image of coffins in Indian flags, which we saw was shared with the viral claim. We found the image can be traced to August 2013. We found the traces in The Washington Post, which confirms the fact that the viral snap is from the Past incident where five Indian Army soldiers were killed by Pakistani intruders in Poonch, Jammu, and Kashmir, on August 6, 2013.
Also, The Hindu and India Today offered no confirmation of the death of six Assam Rifles personnel. However, ULFA (I) did issue a statement dated July 13, 2025, claiming that three of its leaders had been killed in a drone strike by Indian forces.
However, by using Shutterstock, it depicts that the coffin's image is old and not representative of any current actions by the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA).
The Indian Army denied it, with Defence PRO Lt Col Mahendra Rawat telling reporters there were "no inputs" of such an operation. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma also rejected that there was cross-border military action whatsoever. Therefore, the viral claim is false and misleading.
Conclusion:
The assertion that ULFA (I) killed six soldiers from the 6th Assam Rifles in a retaliation strike is incorrect. The viral image used in these posts is from 2013 in Jammu & Kashmir and has no relevance to the present. There have been no verified reports of any such killings, and both the Indian Army and the Assam government have categorically denied having conducted or knowing of any cross-border operation. This faulty narrative is circulating, and it looks like it is only inciting fear and misinformation therefore, please ignore it.
- Claim: Report confirms the death of six Assam Rifles personnel in an ULFA-led attack.
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Introduction
Somewhere right now, a model is reading a library. It does not read like you or I, savouring a good line or skipping to the end. It does not copy, clean and convert text into numbers at the scale that a human reader could. The copyright questions these models raise are not new, but they are new in scale, and they implicate a legal order that prizes borders. A book written in Lagos can be replicated on a server in Virginia, used to train a model sold in Berlin. Whose laws apply? The honest answer is: we don't know.
A Treaty Written Before Computers
The Berne Convention is one of the most important international agreements on copyright, with over 180 countries being party to it. According to Article 9(1) of the Berne Convention, authors have the exclusive right to allow or prohibit the reproduction of their works in any form or way. Article 9(2) provides that certain countries may implement exceptions to the rights granted by the convention, as long as they are consistent with the three-step test. More specifically, a national law exception should be confined to a certain category of works, not prejudice the work’s normal use, and not unreasonably prejudice the rights of the author.
This explains how the Berne Convention could apply to copyright protection for AI. Developers of such technology often argue that since the output of a given model rarely resembles anything learned from the examples provided, there is no copying occurring. However, the Agreed Statements of the WIPO Copyright Treaty provide that the reproduction of a protected item in digital format also constitutes a reproduction. Therefore, if a work is used to train a model, this can be considered a reproduction, and the question then emerges whether a national exception applies.
Three Jurisdictions, Three Answers
Countries have responded in different ways to that question. The United States draws on its fair use doctrine, a flexible, four-factor test that was never intended for machine learning but dominates AI-related disputes anyway. Japan’s Article 30-4 permits uses of works for the purpose of data analysis where the use is not for the enjoyment of the work’s expression, which captures a lot of what training entails. And the European Union’s approach falls somewhere in the middle: its text and data mining rules allow mining of lawfully accessible works, but rightsholders can specify in a machine-readable manner that they do not want their works mined, and developers are required to seek permission.
A recent roundtable from the Columbia Undergraduate Law Review argues that the EU model fits the three-step test best because the opt-out keeps a licensing market alive and gives authors control before their work is used rather than after. It argues that broad US fair use and Japan's provision both struggle at the second and third steps, since they can undercut a foreseeable licensing market. That is one scholarly view and not settled law. The EU system also has its own weak spot: an opt-out only protects authors who know it exists and have the technical means to use it.
Bartz v. Anthropic in Brief
Bartz v. Anthropic is the case that puts these debates in front of a judge. Three authors, including Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson, filed a lawsuit against the Anthropic company for using part of their works to create the central library used by Claude and to train the models used in its creation. In addition, in June 2025, Judge William Alsup approved the separation of the case, considering each instance of use separately.
On training, he granted summary judgement for Anthropic, holding the use was fair and describing it as exceedingly transformative. He compared it to a reader who studies great writing in order to produce something new. It mattered that the authors did not allege Claude's outputs reproduced their books, so the case turned on inputs alone. He also held that buying print books and scanning them into digital copies was fair use, since it only changed the format of copies Anthropic already owned. But he refused to excuse the more than seven million pirated books Anthropic downloaded to build a permanent library. Building that library from pirated copies, he found, was its own use and not a transformative one, and that part was set for trial.
Two observations are worth making in relation to those thinking across borders. First, the court's assumption that there might be a market for training licences, but its observation that this is not a market which the Copyright Act entitles authors to control, is quite inconsistent with Berne's concern for normal exploitation. Moreover, the order makes no reference to Berne at all, bearing out the observation that the US courts apply the domestic statute and not the treaty.
The story did not end there. Anthropic agreed to a $1.5 billion class settlement covering roughly 482,000 works, and the court granted final approval on 20 July 2026. It resolves claims about past acquisition and copying, so the training ruling remains a trial court's view rather than binding precedent.
Where Borders Break the System
The deeper trouble is that none of this travels well. Berne is not self-executing in the United States, so judges apply the domestic statute, and nobody is required to ask whether a fair use ruling passes the three-step test. Meanwhile, training can happen in one country, on work from dozens of others, for a product used everywhere. The same book might be freely usable in Tokyo, subject to an opt-out in Paris and defended as fair use in San Francisco.
The roundtable suggests one way forward: a new WIPO special agreement, along the lines of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, in response to the internet. It would provide guidance on the application of the three-step test to training, regard licensing markets as an ordinary part of exploitation, and require minimum standards for reservations of rights and compensation. There is one major potential obstacle: many of the most influential AI companies are based in the US, which has a record of opposing international obligations that impinge on fair use. A deal would apply only to the extent that it is not controlled by the US, where most of the training takes place. Market forces, in the form of the so-called Brussels effect, may prove more influential than negotiations at WIPO.
Conclusion
Bartz’s analysis illustrates the importance of characterising a specific use at the level of a particular court. While the former had been viewed as an activity and the latter as an acquisition, the distinction between the use of a work and its acquisition appears more likely to transcend borders than the concept of fair use. Berne was designed to create a common ground for authors. Whether this convention would be able to fulfil its function in the era of generative AI depends on the willingness of nations to adopt a joint understanding of what constitutes its foundations for machines.
Executive Summary
A graphic featuring a photograph of Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is being widely circulated on social media. The graphic carries a statement attributed to him: “It is not appropriate for the Prime Minister of India to bow before Trump, and India was a matter of pride under Indira Gandhi.” The graphic claims that Mojtaba Khamenei made this statement. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found that Mojtaba Khamenei did not make any such statement. The research revealed that there is no credible evidence, official statement, interview, or verified social media post supporting the claim. Had such a statement been made by him, it would have been reported by credible media outlets.
Claim
Sharing the graphic, an X user named Thakur Kuldeep Singh wrote:“Narendra Modi has tarnished India’s name across the entire world. Do we now have to hear all this from Iran too?”
https://x.com/Ramesh18498367/status/2066095602954649607?s=20
Fact Check
As part of our fact-checking process, we conducted a keyword search on Google using terms such as “Mojtaba Khamenei criticized India’s Prime Minister for bowing before Trump” and “Mojtaba Khamenei praised India under Indira Gandhi.” However, we found no credible news reports, official statements, interviews, or verified social media posts supporting the claim that Mojtaba Khamenei made such remarks. During our research, we also found a report published by NDTV on March 12, 2026, which mentioned remarks made by a representative of Iran’s Supreme Leader regarding Iran-India relations.
According to the report, the representative stated that Mojtaba Khamenei “loves India” and values the long-standing civilizational ties between the two countries. He further said that Iran’s leadership has historically admired India’s culture, philosophy, and history and has consistently supported stronger relations between the two nations.
Conclusion
Our research found that the claim attributing a statement to Mojtaba Khamenei criticizing India’s Prime Minister for bowing before Trump and praising India during Indira Gandhi’s tenure is false. There is no credible news report, official statement, interview, or verified social media post confirming that Mojtaba Khamenei made such a statement. The viral graphic is being circulated with a false attribution.
