Comparison of Matching Methods for Copy-Move Image Forgery Detection

  • Osamah M. Al-QershiEmail author
  • Bee Ee KhooEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 398)


Copy-Move is one of the most common image forgery types, where a region of an image is copied and pasted into another location of the same image. Such a forgery is simple to achieve but hard to be detected as the pasted region shares the same characteristics with the image. Although plenty of algorithms have been proposed to tackle the copy-move detection problem, those algorithms differ in two things; matching method and type of features. In this paper, we focus on analyzing and comparing four matching methods in terms of accuracy and robustness against different image processing operations. Such analysis and comparison provide indispensable information for the design of new accurate and reliable copy-move detection techniques.


Copy-move Digital image forensics Image forgery 



The authors would like to acknowledge the financial assistance provided by Ministry of Education Malaysia through FRGS grant number 203/PELECT/6071305.


  1. 1.
    Mahdian B, Saic S (2010) A bibliography on blind methods for identifying image forgery. Signal Process: Image Commun 25:389–399Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Redi JA, Taktak W, Dugelay JL (2011) Digital image forensics: a booklet for beginners. Multim Tools Appl 51:133–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Qershi OM, Khoo BE (2013) Passive detection of copy-move forgery in digital images: state-of-the-art. Forensic Sci Int 231:284–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim HS, Lee HK (2003) Invariant image watermark using zernike moments. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 13:766–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Teh CH, Chin RT (1988) On image analysis by the methods of moments. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 10:496–513CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bravo-Solorio S, Nandi AK (2011) Automated detection and localisation of duplicated regions affected by reflection, rotation and scaling in image forensics. Signal Process 91:1759–1770CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Al-Qershi OM, Khoo BE (2014) Enhanced matching method for copy-move forgery detection by means of zernike moments. In: Digital-forensics and watermarking. Springer, pp 485–497Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lynch G, Shih FY, Liao HYM (2013) An efficient expanding block algorithm for image copy-move forgery detection. Inf Sci 239:253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bentley JL (1975) Multidimensional binary search trees used for associative searching. Commun ACM 18:509–517CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shivakumar B, Baboo LDSS (2011) Detection of region duplication forgery in digital images using surf. IJCSI Int J Comput Sci Issues 8Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Langille A, Gong M (2006) An efficient match-based duplication detection algorithm. In: The 3rd Canadian conference on computer and robot vision, 2006. IEEE, pp 64–64Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Ryu SJ, Kirchner M, Lee MJ, Lee HK (2013) Rotation invariant localization of duplicated image regions based on zernike moments. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 8:1355–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li Y (2013) Image copy-move forgery detection based on polar cosine transform and approximate nearest neighbor searching. Forensic Sci Int 224:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ryu SJ, Lee MJ, Lee HK (2010) Detection of copy-rotate-move forgery using zernike moments. In: Information hiding. Springer, pp 51–65Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringUniversiti Sains MalaysiaPenangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations