Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 75, Issue 2, pp 1159–1176 | Cite as

Feature point-based copy-move forgery detection: covering the non-textured areas

Article

Abstract

Detection of copy-move forgery has recently attracted much attention. During the past decade, two categories of methods, namely block-based and feature point-based methods, gradually developed. Compared with block-based methods, feature point-based methods exhibit remarkable performance with respect to robustness and computational cost. However, the feature point-based methods are still incomplete especially in terms of forgeries involving small smooth regions. In this paper, we solve this problem by cautiously supplementing redundant feature points and feature fusion. We propose two-stage feature detection to obtain better feature coverage and enhance the matching performance by combining the MROGH and HH descriptor. We evaluated our method on two representative datasets. We use precision, recall and F 1 score to quantitatively evaluate the performance. Experimental results confirm the efficacy of our work.

Keywords

Copy-Move Detection MROGH Descriptor Hue Histogram Feature matching Feature fusion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Yuenan Li and Irene Amerini for sharing their copy-move forgery detection code. We also thank Mahmoud Emam and all the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. Additionally, this work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61100187 and 61361166006) and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2011M500666).

References

  1. 1.
    Amerini I, Ballan L, Caldelli R, Del Bimbo A, Del Tongo L, Serra G (2013) Copy-move forgery detection and localization by means of robust clustering with j-linkage. Signal Process Image Commun 28(6):659–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amerini I, Ballan L, Caldelli R, Del Bimbo A, Serra G (2011) A sift-based forensic method for copy–move attack detection and transformation recovery. IEEE Trans Inf Forensic Secur 6(3):1099–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bashar M, Noda K, Ohnishi N, Mori K (2010) Exploring duplicated regions in natural images. IEEE Trans Image Process PP(99):1–1. doi: 10.1109/TIP.2010.2046599 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bay H, Tuytelaars T, Van Gool L (2006) Surf: Speeded up robust features. In: Computer vision–ECCV 2006. Springer, pp 404–417Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bayram S, Sencar H, Memon N (2009) An efficient and robust method for detecting copy-move forgery. In: IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing, ICASSP 2009, pp 1053–1056. doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.2009.4959768, (to appear in print)
  6. 6.
    Bravo-Solorio S, Nandi A (2011) Exposing duplicated regions affected by reflection, rotation and scaling. In: IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pp 1880–1883. doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.2011.5946873, (to appear in print)
  7. 7.
    Brown M, Szeliski R, Winder S (2005) Multi-image matching using multi-scale oriented patches. In: IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, CVPR 2005, vol 1, pp 510–517. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2005.235
  8. 8.
    Chen L, Lu W, Ni J, Sun W, Huang J (2013) Region duplication detection based on harris corner points and step sector statistics. J Vis Commun Image Represent 24(3):244–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christlein V, Riess C, Jordan J, Riess C, Angelopoulou E (2012) An evaluation of popular copy-move forgery detection approaches. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 7(6):1841–1854. doi: 10.1109/TIFS.2012.2218597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fan B, Wu F, Hu Z (2011) Aggregating gradient distributions into intensity orders: A novel local image descriptor. In: IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). IEEE, pp 2377–2384Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fischler MA, Bolles RC (1981) Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Commun ACM 24(6):381–395CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fridrich AJ, Soukal BD, Lukáṡ AJ (2003) Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images. In: Proceedings of digital forensic research workshop. CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gkalelis N, Mezaris V (2014) Video event detection using generalized subclass discriminant analysis and linear support vector machines. In: Proceedings of international conference on multimedia retrieval, vol 25. ACMGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guo JM, Liu YF, Wu ZJ (2013) Duplication forgery detection using improved daisy descriptor. Expert Syst Appl 40(2):707–714. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.002. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417412009633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li Y (2013) Image copy-move forgery detection based on polar cosine transform and approximate nearest neighbor searching. Forensic Science International 224(1–3):59–67. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.10.031. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073812004859 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vis 60(2):91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luo W, Huang J, Qiu G (2006) Robust detection of region-duplication forgery in digital image. In: 18th International Conference on Pattern recognition, ICPR 2006. IEEE, pp 746–749Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mahdian B, Saic S (2007) Detection of copy–move forgery using a method based on blur moment invariants. Forensic Sci Int 171(2):180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Noble JA (1988) Finding corners. Image Vis Comput 6(2):121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pan X, Lyu S (2010) Region duplication detection using image feature matching. IEEE Trans Inf Forensic Secur 5(4):857–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Popescu AC, Farid H (2004) Exposing digital forgeries by detecting duplicated image regions. Department Computer Science, Dartmouth College, Technical Report. TR2004-515Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ryu SJ, Lee MJ, Lee HK (2010) Detection of copy-rotate-move forgery using zernike moments. In: Bhme R, Fong P, Safavi-Naini R (eds) Information Hiding, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6387. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 51–65Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scherp A, Mezaris V (2014) Survey on modeling and indexing events in multimedia. Multimedia Tools Appl 70(1):7–23. doi: 10.1007/s11042-013-1427-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shivakumar B, Baboo LDSS (2011) Detection of region duplication forgery in digital images using surf. IJCSI Int J Comput Sci Issues 8(4)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tola E, Lepetit V, Fua P (2010) Daisy: An efficient dense descriptor applied to wide-baseline stereo. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 32(5):815–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tuytelaars T (2010) Dense interest points. In: IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). IEEE, pp 2281–2288Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van De Weijer J, Schmid C (2006) Coloring local feature extraction. In: Computer vision–ECCV 2006. Springer, pp 334–348Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and TechnologyHarbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinChina
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and TechnologyMudanjiang Normal UniversityMudanjiangPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations