Paper ID-607
Paper Title Study of Copy-Move Forgery Detection
Techniques in Images
Ankita Bansal
Division of Information Technology
Netaji Subhas University of Technology
Delhi, India
Ankita.bansal06@gmail.com
Abstract— With the evolution of tools used for image editing in
today's world, the images can be manipulated with ease.
Resizing, cloning, cropping, etc., becomes easy and fast while on
the other end, a great challenge in front of the world is
determining whether an image has been tempered or not. A very
popular manipulation method for tempering images is Copy-
move forgery in which a part of an image is duplicated and
pasted in some other location of the same image. Major research
has been going on in detection of copy-move forgery. A detailed
review and analytical discussion has been presented in this paper
along with pros and cons of each of the detection techniques used
for copy-move forgery detection.
Keywords—image forgery, Principal Component Transformation,
active detection, passive detection, SIFT, DCT
I. INTRODUCTION (Heading 1)
In present day, digital media has become an important part
of our lives. Also accessing and sharing information is very
easy with digital media nowadays, thus it plays a significant
role in a variety of fields and various technologies. Similarly,
various image processing software and tools are available in
the market to enhance or edit these images to look as required.
As Software for image editing are easily available nowadays,
image forgery has become a very common thing. Amongst
many forgeries, “Copy-Move Forgery” is a forgery technique
in which a region of image is copied and pasted in nearly
matching area in order to hide a particular part of that image.
This might be done in order to hide or add certain feature or
object in the image which changes the integrity of that image.
It is very crucial to identify forged images from the original
ones as one of the most important fields where digital images
are used are forensic studies [1]. The various image forgeries
types are:
• Image Retouching: This forgery technique is less harmful
than other techniques since the final forged image is not very
different from the original one but have just minor
enhancements. It is used to make the object look more
attractive. Thus, retouching is just like polishing of an image
Aditya Atri
Division of Information Technology
Netaji Subhas University of Technology
Delhi, India
adityaa.it.16@nsit.net.in
in which a retoucher focuses on adjusting various other
elements of an image [2].
• Image splicing: This forgery technique [3] is more harmful
than the one mentioned above (Retouching) and is simple to
do. The image is forged by using elements or objects from
different images to form a single image i.e. multiple images
are selected and in a way merged together.
• Copy-Move Attack: This forgery technique is a difficult
and a commonly used forgery technique. The image is
forged by extracting a specific region of the original image
and using it again in nearly matching area in order to hide a
particular part of that image or add extra feature to it. Thus,
it changes the information conveyed by the image
completely [4].
Various different techniques have already been devised, so
that we can easily distinguish the forged image from the
original ones. These detection techniques can be broadly
divided into following two types:
Active detection: It requires prior information about the
original image [5]. Digital watermarking and digital signatures
are commonly used under active detection.
Passive detection: It doesn’t require any pre-processed image
information to detect whether it’s forged or not. It is based on
assumptions that even though we cannot spot the tampered
image from the original image with naked eyes but it would
likely to alter some other statistics, which then are used to
identify the real image [6]. Copy move forgery, image splicing
detection, retouching detection are some of the commonly
used techniques under passive detection.
In this paper, we performed a survey on various Copy-
Move forgery detection techniques. The authors did a
thorough study and tried to explore the recent papers from the
years 2013-2019. A systematic approach is conducted to carry
out the survey which is explained in section II. Several
research questions are designed to focus on some key
perspectives. The research questions are answered in a
thorough and unbiased manner. Focus is laid on some of the
 8TH International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (ICRITO'2020), March 5-6,2020
key perspectives such as the most common technique used in
copy move forgery, the popular performance measures used
etc. The answers to each of the researchers will be helpful for
the researchers and practitioners to have gainful insight in the
concerned area. The review would also be help to find and fill
up gaps (if any) in the Copy-Move forgery detection field,
which then would help us to give suggestions on the areas
where further investigation can be done. In other words, the
review may be helpful for suggesting new directions in the
related field.
II. METHODOLOGY
In this section, we briefly explain the steps (figure 1) followed
to conduct this review.
Fig 1: Research Methodology
Copy-Move forgery is a very crucial problem nowadays as
most of the things are turning digital now and thus, this makes
its detection a very important topic to be researched upon.
A. Identification of Research Questions
The review revolves around research questions which
present the intent of the review. Thus, the correct formulation
of research questions is very important. To answer these
research questions, a thorough study of various research
papers is required. We have designed the research questions
keeping in mind the different types of readers like students,
researchers and practitioners. The answers to these questions
can be used to draw important conclusion and inferences.
Following questions are formulated and will be addressed in
this review:
1. Different data sets used for Copy-Move Forgery
detection: shows different data sets available and
used to check the integrity of the detection technique
used in various papers.
2. Popular performance measures used to evaluate the
results: shows which all parameters are used and
adopted by researchers to check quality of different
forgery detection techniques.
3. Comparison between SIFT and SURF technique:
shows how these two techniques are different than
others and which technique is good for what purpose.
4. A performance analysis on key points and block-
based techniques: tells how working of techniques
are different when based on key point search and
bock-based search algorithm.
2
AIIT, Amity University Uttar Pradesh Noida, INDIA
B. Identification of the Search Strategy
The initial research is done in the following scientific
databases: IEEE Xplore, Springer, ScienceDirect. The papers
published in reputed journals and international conferences are
searched using the keywords such as forgery, SIFT, SURF etc.
In addition to this, the search strings are also formed using the
“OR” , “AND”. For example,
“Copy move forgery” OR “SIFT” AND “DCT”
In this way, we collected approximately 200 papers from
the year 2013 till date, which constitute the primary papers.
The next step is to have a secondary set of papers which are
more relevant to the field. For this, the abstracts of each of the
collected papers are read and the paper which is found to be
not related to the field is dropped. This helped us to obtain a
smaller set of papers. To obtain the final set of the papers
which are included in the review, full papers are downloaded
and thoroughly read. In addition to the authors, the papers are
also read by the senior faculty members of the same domain to
judge the actual relevance of the paper in the field. After this
careful selection, the final set of papers to be included in this
review constitute 36 papers.
III. REPORTING RESULTS
This section explains the answers to various research
questions designed in the previous section.
ANS1. Different datasets available and used for Copy Move
Forgery Detection are as follows:
▪ MICC-F220: This dataset works for images having
Rotation, Translation, Scaling or mixture of all.
▪ FAU: This dataset works for images having JPEG
compression, Rotation, Scaling.
▪ MICC-F600: This dataset works for images having
Rotation, Translation, Scaling or mixture of all.
▪ MICC-F2000: This dataset works for images having
Rotation, Translation, Scaling or mixture of all.
▪ CoMoFoD: This dataset works for images having Rotation,
Translation, Scaling, Distortion, JPEG compression.
▪ GRIP: This dataset works for Rotation and Scaling.
▪ SBU-CM16: This dataset works for Rotation, blurring
noise addition, JPEG compression.
▪ CASIA: This dataset is used for splicing forgery detection.
Its latest version CASIA v2.0 is a widely used dataset for
CMFD
Table I briefly describes each of the popular datasets used
in this field. In table II, the papers which have used these
datasets are given.
ANS2. Different performance measures used to evaluate
different techniques in copy move forgery detection are
precision, recall and accuracy. While precision refers to the
percentage of the results which are relevant, recall refers to the
 8TH International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (ICRITO'2020), March 5-6,2020
AIIT, Amity University Uttar Pradesh Noida, INDIA
percentage of total relevant results correctly classified by the • SURF is 3 times faster than SIFT because of the usage of box
technique. Accuracy is defined as the ratio of correctly filter and integral image.
predicted results by the total results. Mathematically, • SIFT and SURF both are good in illuminating changes in the
images.
a. Precision= TP/(TP+FP) The tables III and IV show time taken by SIFT and SURF for
feature extraction respectively. In the tables III and IV,
b. Recall =TP/(TP+FN) following notations are used:
c. Accuracy =(TP+TN)/(TP+TN+FP+FN) E stands for Extraction points
a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h denote different images as shown in figure 2.
Where, TP= True Positive Rate (TP), TN= True Negative Rate,
TABLE III. PROCESSING TIME TAKEN WHEN IMPLEMENTING SIFT
FP= False Positive Rate, FN = False Negative Rate
IMAGE E IN 1 E IN 2 TIME TAKEN
TABLE I. TYPES OF DATASETS Image a and b 3001 3043 5235.25

IMAGE ATTACKS Image a and c 3001 823 3511.85

NAME IMAGES
SIZE Image a and d 3001 862 3626.46
Rotation,
MICC- 722x48 ; Image a and e 3001 823 4075.62
Translation, 220
F220 800x60 Scaling Image a and f 3001 2164 4368.75
420x300; JPEG compression, Image a and g 3001 1567 4263.84
FAU Rotation, Scaling
48
3888x2592
Rotation, Image a and h 3001 3315 5223.4
MICC- 800x533;
Translation, 600
F600 3888x2592 Scaling or
Rotation,
MICC -
2048x1536 Translation, 2000
F2000 Scaling or
Rotation,
COMOFO 512x512;
Translation, 260
D 300x200 Scaling, Distortion
Rotation and
GRIP 768x1024 Scaling.
160
Rotation, blurring
SBU-CM16 800x580 noise addition, 240
compression.
Rotation,
CASIA 240x160;
Translation, 5123
v2.0 900x600 Scaling

TABLE II. RESEARCH PAPERS USING THE DATASETS

Name of Dataset Papers

MICC-F220 [1],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11]
COVERAGE [1],[12]
MICC-F600 [13,[14],[15]
MICC-F2000 [13], [14] Fig 2: Different types of images
CoMoFoD [13],[2],[12],[16],[17] ANS4
CASIA [9],[11],[18] 1. Key point-based CMFD techniques
GRIP [12],[18]
SURF [21] key point features and SIFT introduced by Lowe
ANS3. Feature matching and detection are used in object [22] are used in various CMFD. The following steps are
retrieval, object tracking and image registration. There are followed for SIFT computation:
various approaches which are used to match and detect features • Key point descriptors.
such as [19] SURF (Speeded up Robust Feature), SIFT (Scale • Orientation Assignment
Invariant Feature Transform), ORB and [20] FAST. SURF and • Key point Localisation.
SIFT are most useful approaches to match and detect features. • Scale-space extrema detection
In this paper, the comparison between SURF and SIFT are Matching speed is faster in SURF technique when compared to
discussed. The following points demonstrate the comparison: SIFT due to integral image and Hessian matrix’s
approximation. An image is formulated by the addition of the
• SURF is better in blur; rotation invariant and warp transform as
values between the origin and points.
compared to SIFT and SIFT is better in different scale images

3
 8TH International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (ICRITO'2020), March 5-6,2020
1.1 SIFT and integrated CMFD methods based on SIFT
Key points from SIFT are derived and used for CMFD
[23].Various images were collected from various sources
(majorly internet) for this experiment. SIFT descriptors are
first derived and then Euclidean distance is calculated
between the descriptor vectors for matching extracted SIFT
descriptors. It is then observed that due to properties of
SIFT (of rotation and scale invariant), the method is also
robust for forgeries in which scaling and rotation was done.
Although it still isn’t robust for detecting forgeries against
small-size smooth regions and low signal-to-noise ratio and
needs to be improved.
1.2 SURF and integrated CMFD methods based on SURF
In [24], “SURF” we first extract descriptors from the
duplicate or tampered image. Then the descriptor’s subsets
were matched. It was noticed that this method can prove to
be fast and reliable in case of images that are small in size.
Although localization of forgery in the image is not done.
In [25], SURF can also be combined with Discrete Cosine
Transform (DCT) for “CMFD”. This method is then applied
on “Uncompressed color images database” (UCID). Co-
efficients of DCT are then checked for double JPEG
compression effect. The extraction of features is done in the
same manner by using SURF and it was noticed that this
method also is able to locate and detect the forgeries in the
tampered image. Although, the experiment was performed
on a particular dataset containing very few images only. In
[26], SURF was combined with Fourier–Mellin Transform
(FMT) for CMFD. In this method image is divided into flat
regions and non-flat regions. Then, afterwards, in flat
regions FMT is applied and in non-flat regions SURF is
applied to find duplicate regions. It was then observed that
the method cannot be used for images that are large in size
as time taken by FMT for processing is greater when
compared to other techniques.
2. Block-based “CMFD” techniques
In block-based method we start by dividing the duplicate/forged
image into non-overlapping or overlapping blocks. After
division of the image we do a robust extraction of features from
each and every block and then features are divided or arranged
with the help of appropriate forgery pairs and data structures. In
this report, block-based methods are divided on the basis of,
extraction of block features into six different categories.
.2.1 Methods based on Frequency domain
A coefficient based quantized DCT process is shown in
[27]. In this report, forged regions are identified by sorting
the DCT coefficients lexicographically and by using shift
vectors. Due to the “DCT coefficient matching”, this
process becomes robust against retouching, compression
and noise. However, for images that are tempered/forged
by Rotating or Scaling the copied blocks, aren’t detected
by this method. FMT for forgery detection is stated and
4
AIIT, Amity University Uttar Pradesh Noida, INDIA
used in [28]. Writers of the report claim that this algorithm
(based on FMT) can easily identify forgery in the
tempered images even if the tempered image is highly
compressed, scaled or rotated and it also takes less time in
detection since instead of lexicographic sorting, counting
bloom filters are used.
2.2 Methods based on Dimensionality reduction
Paper [29] used two robust features based on kernel PCA
and DWT. Various natural images were used in order to
test this method. From the quantitative analysis it was
observed that in the uncompressed domain and noiseless
domain, features based on PCA/ kernel PCA (KPCA) are
outperformed by DWT in terms of recall and average
precision. Features based on KPCA, perform well in JPEG
compression and noise. In [30], extraction of singular
valued features is done with the help of SVD by applying
it on each overlapping block. Also, K-d tree approach is
used for feature matching. However, this method isn’t
suitable for images with JPEG compression because it
results in loss of image details in SVD. In [31], geometric
and algebraic invariant feature vectors are also obtained by
using SVD. For identifying similarities between each
block pair, “Chebyshev” distance measure is used. It was
then concluded, that this method proved to be robust
against Gaussian noise (AWGN), additive white, blur and
JPEG compression. However, rotation and scaling
operations were not detected by using this method. In
[32], for dimensional reduction DWT was applied in the
image. And then, SVD is applied to the fixed-sized
overlapping blocks of a low frequency wavelet
2.3 Methods based on Local binary pattern (LBP)
LBP is a grey-scale texture operator. Image texture’s
spatial structure can be easily described by this method. In
[33], before dividing the overlapping circular blocks a low
pass filter is applied on the image. Rotation invariant
features are extracted from each block using uniform LBP
and are also compared in order to decide whether the
image is forged or not. For testing, Photoshop tool was
used and various images were collected from the Internet
to perform “copy-move forgery”. And the result told us
that this technique is strong in opposed to rotation, noise,
compression and blurring. However, due to interpolation
error it failed to identify forgeries in the case of random
region rotation. In [16], local binary pattern features of
multi-resolution with two, three and four types of LBP
operators are used. A database of 100 images is used to
test this method. Database was created from [32] and by
personal collection. To speed up the algorithm k-d tree and
Lexicographical sorting are used in block matching.
However, the time taken to process high resolution images
came out to be more in the method. In [17], Center
symmetric LBP (CSLBP) and Hessian points are
combined. MICC- F220 images were used to test this
method. This method proved to be invariant to
illumination, translation and scaling, because of
 8TH International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (ICRITO'2020), March 5-6,2020
combination of CSLBP and the Hessian points. However,
images with forgeries done by rotation or blur degradation
weren’t detected by this method. Although, by using blur-
invariant and rotation features, these limitations can be
eliminated. In [33], LBP is combined with steerable
pyramid transform (SPT). CASIA v1.0 dataset is used in
order to test the process. SPT is applied to the
chrominance component of the image and extraction of
features from each SPT sub-band is done by LBP. Finally,
to classify or check the integrity of the image SVM is
used. Selection methods, namely, LOGO and feature
discriminant ratio are used to reduce the dataset
dimension. However, in this method localization of
forgery is not done.
2.4 Methods based on Texture
In [34], from each block Texture features are found and
matched. In terms of precision versus execution time it is
noticed that the best way is using statistical texture
descriptor. Also, in the case of images with forgery in
small regions, edge histogram performed better. In [35], in
order to produce the Gabor feature descriptor of each
block, a Gabor filter with different rotation angles, scaling
factors and frequencies is used. However, tempered images
in which forged regions have undergone different
geometric transformations, resulted in under-performance
of this method.
2.5 Methods based on Moment invariant
Moment invariant methods are set of attributes that are
uniform to a geometric modification. A blur moment
constant is used in [36]. In the procedure used in the
report, the image is first separated under overlapping
blocks and then 24 blur constants are used to represent
each block up to seventh order, for creating attributes
vectors of 72 dimensions. To reduce the dimension of the
block features, Principal component modification (PCM)
is introduced in this process. Finally, with k-d tree,
matching among the blocks is performed. This technique is
strong in opposition to JPEG compression, noise and
presence of blur in images that are smaller in size. This is
because of presence of PCT and blur moments. However,
because of large number of block features in images which
are larger in size, computational complexity increases
whenever we will use this method.
Due to sensitivity to various transformations “block-based
CMFD techniques” hold a major drawback. Also, due to the
separation of the images into various non-overlapping and
overlapping blocks, high computational time is taken by the
techniques. Generally, there is participation of each and every
block in extraction of features and phase matching. Size of the
image affect these techniques ability to detect/identify
forgeries significantly. The size of the block and offset chosen
for dividing an image also brings the same problem. When
block-based techniques are compared to the key point- based
techniques, it is observed that performances of key point-
5
AIIT, Amity University Uttar Pradesh Noida, INDIA
based techniques are robust against various transformations
and prove to be better in computational complexity too. In
“key point-based technique” features size is relatively larger
than those in “block-based techniques”, but the key point
derived from the features vector are generally small in
magnitude when compared with a block of the image.
However, detection of forgeries in highly uniform areas are
not possible with methods based on “key point techniques”.
IV. CONCLUSION AND INSIGHTS DRAWN
This study conducted a review in the field of copy move
forgery. Several research papers in reputed international
journals and conferences are evaluated and thoroughly read.
We have worked on the recent papers in the field of copy
move forgery techniques and collected all the papers to the
best of our knowledge from the year 2013 till date. Through
this review, we intent to provide a broad overview of the work
done in this field. For this purpose, various research questions
are carefully designed and answered. The review will be
beneficial for the students, practitioners and researchers
working in this field to have a basic idea of the work already
conducted. This will further allow them to work upon new
research directions.
Following important inferences can be drawn from the review:
1. It is found that only few papers have worked on the forgery
having multiple forged regions and in real, life a forger will
perform multiple forgeries in a single photo which in result
will fail most of the techniques that are developed. The HSV
Histogram based approach extracted features successfully
detects multiple duplicated region in the image but have some
limitations in it which can be worked upon.
2.SIFT and SURF are iterative methods which are itself very
time consuming Hashing techniques can be applied to get the
result in less time. Like in [28] Coherency sensitive hashing is
used for identifying and matching image patches. This method
is faster than other iterative methods but if the derived level of
error is still not stable enough, the entire process is
implemented again. So the researchers’ community should put
more emphasis on this type of methods.
REFERENCE
[1] Badal Soni, Pradip K. Das, Dalton Meitei Thounaojam ; CMFD: a
detailed review of block based and key feature based techniques in
image copy-move forgery detection ; © The Institution of
Engineering and Technology 2017
[2] Warif, N.B.A., Wahab, A.W.A., Idris, M.Y.I., et al.: ‘Copy-move
forgery detection: survey, challenges and future directions’, J. Netw.
Comput. Appl., 2016, 75, pp. 259–278
[3] Kotsiantis, S.B.: ‘Supervised machine learning: a review of
classification techniques’. Proc. Conf. on Emerging Artificial
Intelligence Applications in Computer Engineering: Real Word AI
Systems with Applications in eHealth, HCI, Information Retrieval
and Pervasive Technologies, 2007, pp. 3–24
 8TH International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (ICRITO'2020), March 5-6,2020
AIIT, Amity University Uttar Pradesh Noida, INDIA
[4] Li, W., Yu, N.: ‘Rotation robust detection of copy-move forgery’. copy-move forgery image detection’. Int. Congress on Image and
IEEE Int. Conf. on Image Processing, 2010, pp. 2113–2116 Signal Processing, 2011, vol. 2, pp. 1086–1096
[5] Ansari, M.D., Ghrera, S.P., Tyagi, V.: ‘Pixel-based image [26] Zhang, G., Wang, H.: ‘SURF based detection of copy-move
forgery detection: a review’, IETE J. Educ., 2014, 55, (1), pp. 40–46 forgery in flat region’, Int. J. Adv. Comput. Technol., 2012, 4, (17),
[6] Birajdar, G.K., Mankar, V.H.: ‘Digital image forgery detection pp. 521–529
using passive techniques: a survey’, Digit. Invest., 2013, 10, (3), pp. [27] Fridrich, J., Soukal, D., Lukas, J.: ‘Detection of copy-move
226–245 forgery in digital images’. Proc. Digital Forensic Research
[7] Huang, Y., Lu, W., Sun, W., et al.: ‘Improved DCT-based Workshop, 2003
detection of copy- move forgery in images’, Forensic Sci. Int., 2011,
[28] Li, L., Li, S., Zhu, H., et al.: ‘An efficient scheme for detecting
206, (1–3), pp. 178–184 copy-move forged images by local binary patterns’, IEEE Trans.
[8] Vanita Agarwal, Vanita Mane ; Reflective SIFT for Improving Image Process., 2016, 4, (1), pp. 46–56
the Detection of Copy-Move Image Forgery ; 2016 Second
[29] Bashar, M., Noda, K., Ohnishi, N., et al.: ‘Exploring duplicated
International Con ference on Research in Computational Intelligence regions in natural images’, IEEE Trans. Image Process., 2016, 99,
and Communication Networks (ICRCICN)
pp. 1–40
[9] Popescu, A.C., Farid, H.: ‘Exposing digital forgeries by detecting [30] Zhang, T., Wang, R.D.: ‘Copy-move forgery detection based on
traces of resampling’, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 2005, 53, (2), pp.
SVD in digital image’. Int. Congress on Image and Signal
758–767 Processing, 2009, pp. 1–5
[10] Li, J., Li, X., Yang, B., et al.: ‘Segmentation-based image copy- [31] Kang, X., Wei, S.: ‘Identifying tampered regions using singular
move forgery detection scheme’, IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Sec., value decomposition in digital image forensics’. Int.
2015, 10, (3), pp. 507– 518 Conf. on Computer Science and Software Engineering, 2008, vol. 3,
[11] Deng-Yuan, H., Ching-Ning, H., Wu-Chih, H., et al.: pp. 926–930
‘Robustness of copy- move forgery detection under high JPEG [32] Tsong, N.T., Fu, C.S.: ‘A data set of authentic and spliced
compression artifacts’, Multimedia Tools Appl., 2017, 76, (1), pp. image blocks’.DVENT Technical Report, 203-2004-3, Columbia
1509–1530 University, 2004
[12] Wen, B., Zhu, Y., Subramanian, R., et al.: ‘COVERAGE-A [33] Muhammad, G., Al-Hammadi, M.H., Hussain, M., et al.: ‘Copy
novel database for copy-move forgery detection’. 2016 IEEE Int.
move image forgery detection method using steerable pyramid
Conf. on Image Processing (ICIP), 2016, pp. 161–165 transform and texture descriptor’. Eurocon 2013, vol. 2013, pp.
[13] Amerini, I., Ballan, L., Caldelli, R., et al.: ‘A SIFT-based
1586–1592
forensic method for copy-move attack detection and transformation
[34] Ardizzone, E., Bruno, A., Mazzola, G.: ‘Copy-move forgery
recovery’, IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Sec., 2011, 6, (3), pp. 1099– detection via texture description’. Proc. ACM Workshop on
1110
Multimedia in Forensics,
[14] Shivakumar, B.L., Baboo, S.S.: ‘Detection of region duplication Security and Intelligence, 2010, pp. 59–64
forgery in digital images using SURF’, Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues,
[35] Hsu, H.C., Wang, M.S.: ‘Detection of copy-move forgery image
2011, 8, (4), pp. 199– 205 using gabor descriptor’. Anti-counterfeiting, Security, and
[15] Mishra, P., Mishra, N., Sharma, S., et al.: ‘Region duplication Identification, 2012, pp. 1–4
forgery detection technique based on SURF and HAC’, Int. J. Adv.
[36] Mahdian, B., Saic, S.: ‘Detection of copy-move forgery using a
Comput. Technol., 2013, 6, (17), pp. 1–8 method based on blur moment invariants’, Forensic Sci. Int., 2007,
[16] Davarzani, R., Yaghmaie, K., Mozaffari, , et al.: ‘Copy-move
171, (2–3), pp. 180–189
forgery detection using multiresolution local binary patterns’,
Forensic Sci. Int., 2013, 231, (1–3), pp. 61–72
[17] Uliyan, D.M., Jalab, H.A., Wahab, A.W.A.: ‘Copy move image
forgery detection using Hessian and center symmetric local binary
pattern’. IEEE Conf. on Open Systems (ICOS), 2015, pp. 7–11
[18] Ryu, S.J., Lee, M.J., Lee, H.K.: ‘Detection of copy-rotate-move
forgery using Zernike moments’. 12th Int. Conf. on Information
Hiding (IH), 2010, pp. 51– 65
[19] Neamtu, C., Barca, C., Achimescu, E., et al.: ‘Exposing copy-
move image tampering using forensic method based on SURF’.
Proc. Int. Conf. on Electronics, Computers and Artificial Intelligence
– ECAI, 2013, pp. 1–4
[20] Lin, H.J., Wang, C.W., Kao, Y.T.: ‘Fast copy-move forgery
detection’, WSEAS Trans. Signal Proc., 2009, 5, (5), pp. 188–197
[21] Lowe, D.G.: ‘Distinctive image features from scale-invariant
keypoints’, Int. J. Comput. Vis., 2004, 60, (2), pp. 91–110
[22] Bay, H., Ess, A., Tuytelaars, T., et al.: ‘Speeded-up robust
features (SURF)’, Comput. Vis. Image Underst., 2008, 110, (3), pp.
346–359
[23] Huang, H., Guo, W., Zhang, Y.: ‘Detection of copy-move
forgery in digital images using SIFT algorithm’. IEEE Pacific-Asia
Workshop on Computational Intelligence and Industrial Application,
2008, vol. 2, pp. 272– 276
[24] Bo, X., Junwen, W., Guangjie, L., et al.: ‘Image copy-move
forgery detection based on SURF’. Int. Conf. on Multimedia
Information Networking and Security, 2010, pp. 889–892
[25] Lin, S.D., Wu, T.: ‘An integrated technique for splicing and