Machine Vision and Applications

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 451–475 | Cite as

Accurate and robust localization of duplicated region in copy–move image forgery

  • Maryam Jaberi
  • George Bebis
  • Muhammad Hussain
  • Ghulam Muhammad
Full Length Paper


Copy–move image forgery detection has recently become a very active research topic in blind image forensics. In copy–move image forgery, a region from some image location is copied and pasted to a different location of the same image. Typically, post-processing is applied to better hide the forgery. Using keypoint-based features, such as SIFT features, for detecting copy–move image forgeries has produced promising results. The main idea is detecting duplicated regions in an image by exploiting the similarity between keypoint-based features in these regions. In this paper, we have adopted keypoint-based features for copy–move image forgery detection; however, our emphasis is on accurate and robust localization of duplicated regions. In this context, we are interested in estimating the transformation (e.g., affine) between the copied and pasted regions more accurately as well as extracting these regions as robustly by reducing the number of false positives and negatives. To address these issues, we propose using a more powerful set of keypoint-based features, called MIFT, which shares the properties of SIFT features but also are invariant to mirror reflection transformations. Moreover, we propose refining the affine transformation using an iterative scheme which improves the estimation of the affine transformation parameters by incrementally finding additional keypoint matches. To reduce false positives and negatives when extracting the copied and pasted regions, we propose using “dense” MIFT features, instead of standard pixel correlation, along with hysteresis thresholding and morphological operations. The proposed approach has been evaluated and compared with competitive approaches through a comprehensive set of experiments using a large dataset of real images (i.e., CASIA v2.0). Our results indicate that our method can detect duplicated regions in copy–move image forgery with higher accuracy, especially when the size of the duplicated region is small.


Blind image forensics Copy–move image forgery SIFT  MIFT Matching 


  1. 1.
    Luo, W., Huang, J., Qiu, G.: Robust detection of region-duplication forgery in digital images. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Pattern Recognition, pp. 746–749. Washington, D.C. (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farid, H.: A survey of image forgery detection. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 2(26), 16–25 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang, J., Feng, Z., Su, Y.: A new approach for detecting copy-move forgery in digital images. In: IEEE Singapore International Conference on Communication Systems, pp. 362–366. (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fridrich, J., Soukal, D., Lukas, J.: Detection of Copy-Move Forgery in Digital Images. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Department of Computer Science SUNY Binghamton, Binghamton, NY (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Popescu, A.C., Farid, H.: Exposing digital forgeries by detecting duplicated image regions. In: Technical Report TR2004-515, Dartmouth College, August (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin, Z., Wang, R., Tang, X., Shum, H.-V.: Detecting doctored images using camera response normality and consistency. In: Proceedings of Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. San Diego, CA, (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mahdian, B., Saic, S.: Detection of copy move forgery using a method based on blur moment invariants. Forensic Sci. Int. 171, 180–189 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li, G., Wu, Q., Tu, D., Sun, S.: A sorted neighborhood approach for detecting duplicated regions in image forgeries based on DWT and SVD. In: IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, pp. 1750–1753. Beijing, China (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khan, S., Kulkarni, A.: An efficient method for detection of copy-move forgery using discrete wavelet transform. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng. (IJCSE) 2(5), 1801–1806 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muhammad, G., Hussain, M., Khawaji, K., Bebis, G.: Blind copy move image forgery detection using dyadic uncedimated wavelet transfor. In: 17th International Conference on Digital Signal Processing. Corfu, Greece, July (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang, H., Guo, W., Zhang, Y.: Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images using SIFT algorithm. In: IEEE Pacific-Asia Workshop on Computational Intelligence and Industrial Application (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pan, X., Lyu, S.: Region duplication detection using image feature matching. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 5(4), 857–867 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amerini, I., Ballan, L., Caldelli, R., Del Bimbo, A., Serra, G.: A SIFT-based forensic method for copy-move attack detection and transformation recovery. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 6(3), 1099–1110 (Jun. 2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lowe, D.G.: Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. IJCV 60(2), 91–110 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mikolajczyk, K., Schmid, C.: Indexing based on scale invariant interest points. In: Proceedings of Eighth International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 525–531. (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mikolajczyk, K., Schmid, C.: A performance evaluation of local descriptors. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 27(10), 1615–1630 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen, J., Shan, S., He, C., Zhao, G., Pietikainen, M., Chen, X., Gao, W.: WLD: a robust local image descriptor. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell 32, 1705–1720 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moreels, P., Perona, P.: Evaluation of features detectors and descriptors based on 3D objects. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 73(3), 800–807 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dalal, N., Triggs, B.: Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. San Diego, CA, June 20–25 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guo, X., Cao, X., Zhang, J., Li, X.: Mift: A mirror reflection invariant feature descriptor. In: Proceedings of ACCV (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ojala, T., PietikaÈinen, M., Harwood, D.: A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on feature distributions. Pattern Recognit. 29, 51–59 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chung, Y.C., Tony, H.X., He, Z.: Building recognition using sketch-based representations and spectral graph matching. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV 2009), KyotoGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ke, Y., Sukthankar, R.: PCA-SIFT: A More Distinctive Representation for Local Image Descriptors. CVPR, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mahdian, B., Siac, S.: A bibliography on blind methods for identifying image forgery. In: Signal Processing: Image Communication, pp. 389–399. (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kumar, S., Das, P.K.: Copy-move forgery detection in digital images: progress and challenges. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng. 3(2), 652–663 (February 2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fischler, M.A., Bolles, R.C.: Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Commun. ACM 24, 381–395 (1981)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raguram, R., Frahm, M., Pollefeys, M.: A comparative analysis of RANSAC techniques leading to adaptive real-time random sample consensus. In: ECCV 2008, Part II, LNCS, vol. 5305, pp. 500–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Provost, F., Fawcett, T., Kohavi, R.: The case against accuracy estimation for comparing induction algorithms. In: Proceeding of the 15th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 445–453. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    CASIA Image Tampering Detection Evaluation Database, ver. 2.0. (2010)
  30. 30.
    Granty, R., Aditya, T., Madhu, S.: Survey on passive methods of image tampering detection. In: 2010 International Conference on Communication and Computational Intelligence (INCOCCI), Dec., pp. 431–436. (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vedaldi, A., Fulkerson, B.: An Open and Portable Library of Computer Vision Algorithms. (2008)
  32. 32.
    Beis, J., Lowe, D.G.: Shape indexing using approximate nearest-neighbor search in high-dimensional spaces. In: Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Puerto Rico, pp. 1000–1006. (1997)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ojala, T., Pietikainen, M., Maenpaa, T.: Multiresolution gray-scale and rotation invariant texture classification with local binary patterns. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 24(7), 971–987 (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huang, D., Shan, C., Ardabilian, M., Wang, Y., Chen, L.: Local binary patterns and its application to facial image analysis: a survey. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 41(6), 765–781 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lazebnik, S., Schmid, C., Ponce, J.: A sparse texture representation using local affine regions. In: Technical Report CVR-TR-2004-01, Beckman Institute, University of Illinois (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bay, H., Tuytelaars, T., Van Gool, L.: SURF: speeded up robust features. In: European Computer Vision Conference (ECCV) (2006)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Canny, J.: A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 8(6), 679–698 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Powers, D.M.W.: Evaluation: from precision, recall and f-factor to roc, informedness, markedness & correlation. J. Mach. Learn. Technol. 2(1), 37–63 (2011)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Muhammad, G., Hussain, M., Bebis, G.: Passive copy move image forgery detection using undecimated dyadic wavelet transform. Digital Investig. 9, 49–57 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Martin, D., Fowlkes, C., Malik, J.: Learning to detect natural image boundaries using local brightness, color and texture cues. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 26(5), 530–549 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maryam Jaberi
    • 1
  • George Bebis
    • 1
  • Muhammad Hussain
    • 2
  • Ghulam Muhammad
    • 3
  1. 1.Computer Science and Engineering DepartmentUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  3. 3.Computer Engineering DepartmentKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations