2-Levels of clustering strategy to detect and locate copy-move forgery in digital images

  • Mohamed Abdel-BassetEmail author
  • Gunasekaran Manogaran
  • Ahmed E. Fakhry
  • Ibrahim El-Henawy


Understanding is considered a key purpose of image forensic science in order to find out if a digital image is authenticated or not. It can be a sensitive task in case images are used as necessary proof as an impact judgment. it’s known that There are several different manipulating attacks but, this copy move is considered as one of the most common and immediate one, in which a region is copied twice in order to give different information about the same scene, which can be considered as an issue of information integrity. The detection of this kind of manipulating has been recently handled using methods based on SIFT. SIFT characteristics are represented in the detection of image features and determining matched points. A clustering is a key step which always following SIFT matching in-order to classify similar matched points to clusters. The ability of the image forensic tool is represented in the assessment of the conversion that is applied between the two duplicated images of one region and located them correctly. Detecting copy-move forgery is not a new approach but using a new clustering approach which has been purposed by using the 2-level clustering strategy based on spatial and transformation domains and any previous information about the investigated image or the number of clusters need to be created is not necessary. Results from different data have been set, proving that the proposed method is able to individuate the altered areas, with high reliability and dealing with multiple cloning.


Copy-move forgery Digital image forensics Manipulating detection Copy-move localization 



The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments that greatly contributed to improving the final version of the paper. They would also like to thank the Editors for their generous comments and support during the review process. Finally, they would like to thank Dr. Hana Hamza for her constructive suspensions and propositions that have helped a lot to improve research quality.


  1. 1.
    Amerini I, Ballan L, Caldelli R, DelBimbo A, Serra G (2011) ASIFT based forensic method for copy move attack detection and transformation recovery. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 6(3):1099–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amerini I, Ballan L, Caldelli R, DelBimbo A, Serra G (2014) Copy-move forgery detection and localization by means of robust clustering with J-LinkageGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barni M, Bartolini F (2004) “Watermarking systems engineering enabling” Digital assets security and other applications. Marcel DekkerGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bashar M, Noda K, Ohnishi N, Mori K (2018) Exploring duplicated regions in natural images. IEEE Trans Image ProcessGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bayram S, Avcibas I, Sankur B, Memon N (2005) Image manipulation detection with binary similarity measures. In: Proc. of EUSIPCO, Antalya, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bayram S, Sencar HT, Memon N (2008) A survey of copy-move forgery detection techniques. In: Proc. of IEEE Western New York Image Processing WorkshopGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bayram S, TahaSencar H, Memon N (2009) An efficient and robust method for detecting copy-move forgery. In: Proc. of IEEE ICASSP, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bravo Solorio S, Nandi AK (2009) Passive method for detecting duplicated regions affected by reflection, rotation and scaling. In: Proc. of EUSIPCO, Glasgow, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen M, Fridrich J, Goljan M, Lukas J (2008) Determining image origin and integrity using sensor noise. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 3(1):74–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christlein V, Riess C, Angelopoulou E (2010) On rotation invariance in copy-move forgery detection. In: Proc. of IEEE WIFS, Seattle, WA, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cox IJ, Miller ML, Bloom JA (2002) Digital watermarking. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fahim A, Saake G, Salem A, Torkey F, Ramadan M (2009) Improved DBSCAN for spatial databases with noise and different densities. GESJ 3(20):53–60Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Farid H (2009) Photo fakery and forensics. Adv Comput 77:1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Farid H (2009) A survey of image forgery detection. IEEE Signal Process Mag 2(26):16–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Farid H, Lyu S (2003) Higher-order wavelet statistics and their application to digital forensics. In: Proc. of IEEE CVPR Workshop on Statistical Analysis in Computer Vision, Madison, WI, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischlerand MA, Bolles RC Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Commun ACM 24(6):381–395Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fridrich J, Soukal D, Lukás J (2003) Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images. In: Proc. of DFRWSGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fridrich J, Soukal D , Lukás J (2003) Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images. In: Proc. of DFRWS, Cleveland, OH, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fridrich J, Soukal D, Luḱas J (2003) Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images. In: Proc. of DFRWSGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    He Z, Sun W, Lu W, Lu H (2011) Digital image splicing detection based on approximate run length. Pattern Recogn Lett 32(12):1591–1597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    He Z, Lu W, Sun W, Huang J (2012) Digital image splicing detection based on markov features in DCT and DWT domain. Pattern Recogn 45(12):4292–4299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huang Y, Lu W, Sun W, Long D (2011) Improved DCT based detection of copy-move forgery in images. Forensic Sci Int 206(1–3):178–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kakar P, Sudha N (2012) Exposing post-processed copy-paste forgeries through transform invariant features. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 7(3):1018–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaur H, Saxena J, Singh S (2015) Simulative Comparison of Copy- Move Forgery Detection Methods for Digital Images. International Journal of Electronics, Electrical and Computational System IJEECS, ISSN 2348-117X Volume 4, Special IssueGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li G, Wu Q, Tu D, Sun SJ (2007) A sorted neighborhood approach for detecting duplicated region in image forgeries based on DWT and SVD. In: Proc. of IEEE ICME, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lin Z, He J, Tang X, Tang CK (2009) Fast automatic and fine grained tampered JPEG image detection via DCT conceit analysis. Pattern Recogn 42(11):2492–2501CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lin HJ, Wang CW, Kao YT (2009) Fast copy-move forgery detection. WSEAS Trans Sig Proc 5(5):188–197Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vis 60(2):91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lyu S, Farid H (2005) How realistic is photorealistic? IEEE Trans Signal Process 53(2):845–850MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mohamed Mursi MF, Salama MM, Habeb MH (2017) An improved SIFT-PCA-based copy-move image forgery detection method. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Electronics Engineering (IJARCSEE) 6(3)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ng T-T, Chang S-F, Hsu J, Pepeljugoski M (2004) Columbia photo-graphic images and photorealistic computer graphics dataset. ADVENT, Columbia University, Tech. RepGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Popescu A, Farid H (2004) Exposing digital forgeries by detecting duplicated image regions. Dartmouth College, Computer Science Tech. Rep. TR2004–515Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Popescu A, Farid H (2005) Statistical tools for digital forensics. In: Proc. of Int. Workshop on Information Hiding, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Popescu AC, Farid H (2005) Exposing digital forgeries by detecting traces of resampling. IEEE Trans Signal Process 53(2):758–767MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Redi JA, Taktak W, Dugelay JL (2011) Digital image for ensics: a booklet for beginners. Multimed Tools Appl 51(1):133–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ryu SJ, Lee MJ, Lee HK (2010) Detection of copy – rotate – move forgery using zernike moments. In: Proc. of International Workshop on Information Hiding, Calgary, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Singh RD, Aggarwal N (2017) Detection and localization of copy-paste forgeries in digital videos. Forensic Sci Int 281:75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Swaminathan A, Wu M, Liu K (2008) Digital image forensics via intrinsic fingerprints. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 3(1):101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikhand HR, Simoncelli EP (2004) Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13(4):600–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang J, Liu G, Li H, Dai Y, Wang Z (2009) Detection of image region duplication forgery using model with circle block. In: Proc. of MINES, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yanga F, Lia J, Lua W, Wengb J (2017) Copy-move forgery detection based on hybrid features. Eng Appl Artif Intell 59:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Abdel-Basset
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gunasekaran Manogaran
    • 2
  • Ahmed E. Fakhry
    • 3
  • Ibrahim El-Henawy
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Computers and Informatics, Department of Operations ResearchZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt
  2. 2.VIT UniversityVelloreIndia
  3. 3.Faculty of Information Systems and Computer ScienceOctober 6 UniversityCairoEgypt
  4. 4.Faculty of Computers and Informatics, Computer Science DepartmentZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt

Personalised recommendations