---
title: "Record when an original is required and when a duplicate may be used"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/list-the-original-electronic-records-still-to-be-obtained-where-only-a-c/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A44-FL20261022-6-US"
practice_area: "Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Record when an original is required and when a duplicate may be used

> Where the lawyer has marked that the content of a writing, recording, or photograph is what must be proved, record that an original is required unless these rules or a federal statute provide otherwise.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/list-the-original-electronic-records-still-to-be-obtained-where-only-a-c/united-states  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Where the lawyer has marked that the content of a writing, recording, or photograph is what must be proved, record that an original is required unless these rules or a federal statute provide otherwise. Record that a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original's authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate. Do not decide that the original is required in this case. Do not decide that a duplicate is fair. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides whether contents are being proved and whether a duplicate is admissible. Federal Rule of Evidence 1002 requires an original writing, recording, or photograph in order to prove its content unless the rules or a federal statute provide otherwise. Rule 1003 admits a duplicate to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original's authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate. Rule 1001's definition of duplicate was not opened, so that definition is not restated. The tool does not decide the point. |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [List the original electronic records still to be obtained where only a copy is held](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/list-the-original-electronic-records-still-to-be-obtained-where-only-a-c.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: Where the lawyer has marked that the content of a writing, recording, or photograph is what must be proved, record that an original is required unless these rules or a federal statute provide otherwise. Record that a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original's authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate. Do not decide that the original is required in this case. Do not decide that a duplicate is fair.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- Rule 1002 applies when contents are what the party is proving. An event can still be proved without the writing.
- Do not import the Australian abolition of common-law ways of proving contents. These rules are the federal requirement of the original and the duplicate rule.

## Sources

- [Federal Rule of Evidence 1002](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1002) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [Federal Rule of Evidence 1003](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1003) (checked 2026-10-22)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*