C2pa Content Credentials Vs Product Provenance

C2PA Content Credentials reached version 2.3 in January 2026 and answer a question about a file — who captured this image, what edited it, was AI involved — while a product provenance record answers a question about a physical object, which is why the two are complements rather than alternatives.

Why AuthiChain

• C2PA binds a manifest to the bytes of a media file; a provenance record binds a signature to an item identifier that has no bytes to hash, so the binding to the physical object comes from the printed carrier, not from cryptography
• Both are tamper-evident in the same way: alter the signed content and the signature stops matching — the difference is what the signature is over, not how strong it is
• Neither proves the claim inside is true. C2PA proves a camera or tool signed a file; an Ed25519 provenance signature proves an issuer signed a statement — protocol/SPEC.md §8 states plainly that signatures prove authorship, not truth

How it works

Issue a unique identifier per unit, anchor its record on-chain for tamper-evidence, and let anyone verify it with a single scan. Plans start at $49/mo.

FAQ

Can C2PA authenticate a physical product?

Not on its own. C2PA is a media-provenance specification: its manifest is bound to a file’s bytes. A photograph of a product can carry Content Credentials proving how the photo was made, but that says nothing about whether the object in it is genuine.

Would C2PA and a product provenance record be used together?

They can be. Product images and certificates attached to a passport are files, and C2PA can establish how those files were produced, while the signed provenance record establishes who issued the claim about the item itself.