Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 75, Issue 18, pp 11513–11527 | Cite as

PCET based copy-move forgery detection in images under geometric transforms



With the advent of the powerful editing software and sophisticated digital cameras, it is now possible to manipulate images. Copy-move is one of the most common methods for image manipulation. Several methods have been proposed to detect and locate the tampered regions, while many methods failed when the copied region undergone some geometric transformations before being pasted, because of the de-synchronization in the searching procedure. This paper presents an efficient technique for detecting the copy-move forgery under geometric transforms. Firstly, the forged image is divided into overlapping circular blocks, and Polar Complex Exponential Transform (PCET) is employed to each block to extract the invariant features, thus, the PCET kernels represent each block. Secondly, the Approximate Nearest Neighbor (ANN) Searching Problem is used for identifying the potential similar blocks by means of locality sensitive hashing (LSH). In order to make the algorithm more robust, morphological operations are applied to remove the wrong similar blocks. Experimental results show that our proposed technique is robust to geometric transformations with low computational complexity.


Copy-move Region duplication Locality sensitive hashing Polar complex exponential transform 


  1. 1.
    Amerini I, Ballan L, Caldelli R, Del Bimbo A, Serra G (2011) A sift-based forensic method for copyCmove attack detection and transformation recovery. IEEE Trans Inf Forensic Secur 6(3):1099–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bayram S, Sencar HT, Memon N (2009) An efficient and robust method for detecting copy-move forgery. In: Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2009. ICASSP 2009. IEEE International Conference on (pp 1053-1056). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christlein V, Riess C, Angelopoulou E (2010) A Study on Features for the Detection of Copy-Move Forgeries. In: Sicherheit, vol 2010, pp 105–116Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christlein V, Riess C, Jordan J, Angelopoulou E (2012) An evaluation of popular copy-move forgery detection approaches. IEEE Trans Inf Forensic Secur 7 (6):1841–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christlein V, Riess C, Jordan J, Angelopoulou E (2012) Supplemental Material to an Evaluation of Popular Copy-Move Forgery Detection Approaches Aug. 2012 [Online]. Available:
  6. 6.
    Cao Y, Gao T, Fan L, Yang Q (2012) A robust detection algorithm for copy-move forgery in digital images. Forensic Sci Int 214(1):33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Datar M, Immorlica N, Indyk P, Mirrokni VS (2004) Locality-sensitive hashing scheme based on p-stable distributions. In: Proceedings of the twentieth annual symposium on Computational geometry (pp 253-262). ACMGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fridrich AJ, Soukal BD, Lukas AJ (2003) Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images. In: Proceedings of Digital Forensic Research WorkshopGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang Y, Lu W, Sun W, Long D (2011) Improved DCT-based detection of copy-move forgery in images. Forensic Sci Int 206(1):178–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Indyk P, Motwani R (1998) Approximate nearest neighbors: towards removing the curse of dimensionality. In: Proceedings of the thirtieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. ACM, pp 604–613Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jaberi M, Bebis G, Hussain M, Muhammad G (2014) Accurate and robust localization of duplicated region in copyCmove image forgery. Mach Vis Appl 25(2):451–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li Y (2013) Image copy-move forgery detection based on polar cosine transform and approximate nearest neighbor searching. Forensic Sci Int 224(1):59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li L, Li S, Zhu H, Wu X (2014) Detecting copy-move forgery under affine transforms for image forensics. Comput Electr Eng 40(6):1951–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li L, Li S, Zhu H, Chu SC, Roddick JF, Pan JS (2013) An efficient scheme for detecting copy-move forged images by local binary patterns. J Inf Hiding Multimed Signal Process 4(1):46–56Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mahalakshmi SD, Vijayalakshmi K, Priyadharsini S (2012) Digital image forgery detection and estimation by exploring basic image manipulations. Digit Investig 8(3):215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nathalie Diane WN, Xingming S, Moise FK (2014) A Survey of Partition-Based Techniques for Copy-Move Forgery Detection. The Scientific World JournalGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Popescu AC, Farid H (2004) Exposing digital forgeries by detecting duplicated image regions. Department Computer Science, Dartmouth College, Technology Report TR2004-515. Available:
  18. 18.
    Powers DM (2011) Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation. J Mach Learn Technol 2(1):37–C63MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Redi JA, Taktak W, Dugelay JL (2011) Digital image forensics: a booklet for beginners. Multimed Tools Appl 51(1):133–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ryu SJ, Kirchner M, Lee MJ, Lee H. K (2013) Rotation invariant localization of duplicated image regions based on zernike moments. IEEE Trans Inf Forensic Secur 8(8):1355–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yap PT, Jiang X, Kot AC (2010) Two-dimensional polar harmonic transforms for invariant image representation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 32(7):1259–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yu L, Han Q, Niu X (2014) Feature point-based copy-move forgery detection: covering the non-textured areas. Multimed Tools Appl:1–18Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and TechnologyHarbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinChina
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics, Faculty of ScienceMenoufia UniversityShebin El-koomEgypt

Personalised recommendations