2019 22nd International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT), 18-20 December, 2019

SMIFD: Novel Social Media Image Forgery

Detection Database
Md. Mehedi Rahman∗1 , Jannatul Tajrin∗2,3 , Abul Hasnat2,3 , Naushad Uzzaman2 and G. M. Atiqur Rahaman1
1 Computer Science and Engineering Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna, Bangladesh.
2 blackbird.ai
3 Cognitive Insight Limited.

Abstract—Image forgery or manipulation changes the contents

of a set of original images to create a new image. Unfortunately,
manipulated images become a growing concern with respect to
spreading misinformation via image sharing in the social media.
Despite the availability of a large number of automatic Image
Forgery Detection (IFD) methods, their evaluation in real-world
benchmarks seems to be limited due to the lack of diverse
datasets. Moreover, the motifs behind the manipulation remains
unclear. This research aims to address these issues by proposing a
novel social media IFD database, called SMIFD-500, to evaluate
the efficiency and generalizability of the IFD methods. The unique
property of this dataset is the availability of the technical and
social attributes in its ground truth annotations. These will
benefit the scientific community to develop efficient methods
by exploiting such annotations. Moreover, it provides interesting
statistics, which highlights the motifs of image manipulation from
social science perspective.
Index Terms—Image Forgery, Image Manipulation, Computer Fig. 1: Illustration of image forgery: three original images
Vision Database.
(within black box) and Photoshop-CS6 software have been
used to create the manipulated image.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Image forgery/manipulation/tempering refers to the process The labeled image databases are one of the most important
of changing the content of one or more original images in elements to develop and evaluate the powerful AI based
order to create a new image [2], [24]. It causes little to large methods, which exploits the advanced machine learning al-
difference in the appearance and content among the source gorithms. The large public image datasets, such as ImageNet
images and the manipulated one. Fig. 1 illustrates an example1 [16] and Microsoft COCO [13] significantly contributed to
of image forgery/manipulation. The goal of IFD is to identify a the developments of the powerful AI enabled computer vision
manipulated image and localize the manipulated region within systems in two ways: (a) train and evaluate the different deep
it. In the early days, image forgery was mostly performed to convolutional neural networks [9], [10] based learning meth-
enhance the original image quality and appearance using the ods with these datasets [16] and (b) use the trained weights to
basic tools. Today, a large number of different advanced tools, perform transfer learning on the domain/task specific smaller
computer software and web applications exist to easily perform datasets [15]. Therefore, it is evident that the datasets are
image forgery. This causes an increased use of the manipulated essential and obvious pre-requisite to practically realize the
images in the news portals and particularly in the social media. computer vision based automatic systems. This research is
Unfortunately, today the manipulated images become a motivated from the above facts and collects a real world
major source for spreading fake news [12], [22], [25] and practical dataset for the problem of social media IFD.
create an extreme negative impact. Therefore, detecting the Numerous IFD datasets have been already proposed in the
manipulated images to verify the authentic content becomes a literature, see Section II-B for a detail study and overview.
significantly demanding [3], [4], [8], [23] task for the Artificial These datasets can be characterized from different aspects,
Intelligence (AI) community. This research aims to aid the such as data source (artificial/real-world), image quality
development of the automatic IFD task by providing a novel (high/low), image format (raw/compressed), etc. From a detail
and challenging social media manipulated image dataset and study, it is evident that the web collected low quality and
hence fight against the spread of mis-information. compressed images are very challenging to detect forgery by
the state of the art methods. This naturally makes many of
* Denotes equal contribution.
1 Thisexample is created from the original shared image available at - the existing datasets as an inappropriate choice for evaluation.
https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/317081629995063665/ Besides, it lacks clear insights of numerous essential details,

978-1-7281-5842-6/19/$31.00 2019
c IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on June 16,2020 at 01:53:28 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
such as the motifs and forgery types information.
We believe that these missing attributes can play important
role to develop advanced and specialized forgery detection
methods. For example, if the forgery consists of the face of
a person then a method can particularly focus on detecting
it. Similarly, if the manipulated images often accompany
additional texts then the presence of scene text in the image
should indicate the increase of forgery probability. Considering
these facts, we particularly focus on the development of a real-
world dataset which consists of the following properties:
• most appropriate image sources - the dataset must
appropriately address the real-world problem and hence
should be collected from relevant sources and saved them
without any further modification.
• low quality and compressed images – should be collected
in this format in order to represent the real challenges of
forgery detection.
• labelled database – should provide ground truth with
pixel level details so that it can better discriminate the
performance of different methods.
• additional attributes – should provide additional details
which can be exploited to develop advanced methods.
This research provides a novel IFD dataset of 250 manipu-
lated and 250 non-manipulated images. Our primary goal is to
help the community to evaluated the IFD methods on the social
media manipulated images. Therefore, this dataset is called
SMIFD-500 dataset. SMIFD respects all the above mentioned
properties by collecting the images from appropriate source
and without applying any further modifications. Indeed, the
images shared in the social media usually passed through
certain level of compression according to different image
uploading protocol [23]. Furthermore, SMIFD-500 provides
appropriate level of annotations by including additional at-
tributes for each manipulated image, which were performed
by multiple human IFD experts. Finally, the contributions of
this research can be summarized as follows:
• We revisit and study IFD from the perspective of current
challenges, available resources and future requirements to
develop advanced methods.
• We collect a novel IFD dataset, called SMIFD-500, which
appropriately addresses the existing challenges of the
task.
• We provide the ground truths from two different perspec-
tives, which are not only useful for proper evaluation of
the state-of-the-art methods, but also will be helpful to
develop future specialized forgery detection methods.
• We provide an in-depth analysis of the collected dataset,
which provides very interesting statistics of the real-world
image forgery in the social media.
SMIFD-500 will be released publicly2 .
In the remaining part of this paper, first we provide the
background of image forgery and study the state-of-the-art
forgery detection datasets in Section II, describe our forgery
dataset construction strategy in Section III, present statistical
analysis of our dataset and discuss them in Section IV and
finally draw conclusions in Section V.
2 https://github.com/Rana110223/SMIFD-500
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on June 16,2020 at 01:53:28 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
II. BACKGROUND AND THE STUDY OF RELATED WORK
In this section, first we provide the details of IFD and then
briefly study the available datasets (related work). Besides, we
provide the distinction and indicate the novelty of our dataset.
A. Background of IFD
The idea of image forgery is to the change the appearance
and content of one or more original images in order to
create a new image, see Fig 1 for an example. Numerous
different approaches have been used to perform image forgery
using the digital photo editing applications. IFD is primarily
decomposed into active and passive forgery [22], [24]. Active
forgery detection refers to the process of detecting image
forgery based on the presence of a previously inserted invisible
mark, such as image watermark within the image. In contrary,
the passive forgery detection performs the task without any
pre-specified information about the image and hence provides
significant challenge for the IFD methods. This research only
considers the passive forgery detection.
The image forgery types have been categorized differently
in the literature, such as 6 types in [24] and 4 types in
[22]. An analysis over both categorizations provides a unified
taxonomy of the forgery types as: (a) splicing or cut-paste +
erase-fill; (b) copy-move; (c) in-painting or image generating
and (d) broad enhancement. Among these, while the first two
categories unambiguously qualify as true forgeries [22], we
also consider the third category as a true forgery type based on
our findings from the collected dataset (see Section IV). Fig.
2 illustrates the examples of the different types of forgeries
from our proposed SMIFD dataset.
Splicing [21], [25] is the most important type of image
forgery found in the web collected images. It refers to the
process of composing the contents from multiple images to
create a single image. This is accomplished by copying the
contents from one or more original images and then placing
them into the target one. See Fig. 2(a) and (b) for the examples.
The copy-move [17] refers to the process of copying part of an
image and place this copy at one or more different locations
of the same image. See Fig.2(c) for an example. In-painting
[2], [24] refers to the task of drawing over an image using
different tool. This research considers the insertion of texts as
an in-painting forgery since it resembles the drawing of text
patterns over an original image. See Fig.2(d) for an example.
Note that, in-painting may equally referred as splicing [22].
Numerous techniques have been proposed over the years for
automatic IFD, such as traditional image processing based [2],
[8], [17], [21]–[24] and advanced deep convolutional neural
network based [12], [20], [25]. While [2], [24] provides a brief
survey of the earlier techniques to detect a large number of
forgery types, [22] provides more recent review with the most
prominent forgery types and then benchmarked different recent
traditional methods on their proposed Wild Web dataset [23].
B. IFD Datasets
A number of different labeled publicly available datasets
exist to perform image forensic task and detect the manip-
ulated images. [24] and [22] provided the brief overview of

Fig. 2: Examples of different types of manipulated images
(Column 1) from the proposed SMIFD database. The ma-
nipulated regions (in Column 2) associated to each image
is shown as the binary masks. Row (a), (b) illustrate image
splicing, row (c) illustrates copy-move based forgery and row
(d) illustrates the example of inpainting based forgery. The
motif of manipulations in these images are (a) celebrity-
movie; (b) celebrity-sports; (c) celebrity-social-media and (d)
celebrity-sports.
those datasets. Fig. 3 illustrates several samples from different
datasets. One of the primary distinctions of these datasets
is the nature of the generation or collection of the images,
i.e., whether they are artificially created or collected from the
web. Indeed, the web-collected datasets provide more realistic
cases and hence impose enormous challenges to the forgery
detection methods [22]. Therefore, based on this distinction,
we subdivide the datasets into two initial categories: (1)
Artificial and (2) web-collected. Fig. 3(a)-(b) provide the
artificially created samples and Fig. 3(c)-(d) provide the web-
collected samples. The second distinction is based on the
applied compression on the collected images. It is evident
that, while the uncompressed images are relatively easier to
apply the basic image processing based algorithms to detect
forgery, the multiple time compressed images are significantly
harder [22]. The third distinction is based on the resolution of
the image. While, the high resolution/quality images are more
appropriate for forgery detection, the low resolution/quality
images are very challenging. The fourth distinction is based
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on June 16,2020 at 01:53:28 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 3: Examples of the manipulated image samples from
different datasets: (a) splicing from Columbia color [11];
(b) copy-move from COVERAGE [19]; (c) splicing from
WildWeb [21] and (d) splicing from our proposed SMIFD.
on the fixed image size in the collected dataset. While the
fixed image size provides flexibility to design an algorithm,
variable image sizes provides additional challenges. Next, we
provide a detail study of several publicly available datasets.
a) The Columbia gray and color datasets [11], [14]:
in the field of image tempering these are the earliest with
online access. In 2004, the dataset named Columbia Gray
was released [14]. The images of this dataset are only gray
scale blocks. Among the 322 photos, the authors captured 10
images and 310 are taken from the CalPhotos dataset. The
images have the same size of 128×128 and are stored in BMP
format. The dataset has 933 authentic blocks and 912 cut-paste
image blocks which were performed using Adobe Photoshop
without any post processing. However, this dataset has a main
limitation that it does not have tempering mask which is
required for tempering localization task. The Columbia color
and uncompressed image splicing detection and evaluation
dataset [11] was published in 2006 to overcome the limitations
of their previous dataset. It contains 183 original color images
and 180 cut-paste images. The size of the 183 color images
ranges from 757×568 to 1152×768 which are all saved
in uncompressed TIFF format. These images are captured
both from complete indoor and outdoor scenes. In case of a
more realistic tampering detection, this dataset showed good
performance, see Fig. 3(a) for an example.
b) The CASIA datasets [6]: two tampering datasets (v1.0
and v2.0) were publicly launched in a website by the CASIA
team in 2009. It contains both copy-move and cut-paste
images. CASIA v1.0 has 1721 color images of a fixed size
384×256, in which 800 are original and 921 are tampered.
CASIA v2.0 has 12614 color images of size from 240×160
to 900×600, in which 7491 are authentic and 5123 are
tampered. There are two different file formats such as TIFF
for uncompressed and JPEG for compressed images.
c) The MICC datasets [1]: three datasets named MICC-
F220, MICC-F2000 and MICC-F600 have been released by
the MICC team in order to detect the copy-move IFD. In
MICC-F220 dataset, 220 images of size 722×480 to 800×600
are found half tampered and half original. The MICC-F2000
dataset contains 2000 JPEG images of size 2048×1536 where
1300 images are original and 700 are tampered. The above
two datasets did not make much effort in the case of selecting
realistic tampering regions like the Columbia datasets. To over-
come these issues, another dataset MICC-F600 was released
in 2013, which contains 440 original and 160 tampered images
saved as JPEG or PNG format.
d) The IMD dataset [5]: it was published in 2012 in or-
der to study the visually imperceptible copy-move tampering.
More semantically meaningful regions named as “snippets”
were manually selected by skillful photo shoppers instead of
considering rectangular regions. It contains 48 image pairs
where each pair of size 3000×2300 (on average) is formed
with the original and its copy-move tampered versions.
e) The CoMoFoD dataset [18]: it was proposed to
overcome the shortcomings of the previously proposed copy-
move forgery detection datasets, such as [1], [5]. It consists
of 200 original images of size 512×512. For each image the
copy-move and snippet transformation are allowed to perform.
Additionally, 25 different post-processed versions have been
synthesized to augment the total number of tampered images
up to 5200.
f) The COVERAGE dataset [19]: it is perhaps the most
challenging copy-move based forgery detection dataset, re-
leased in 2016. It contains 100 original images and at the
same time there are 100 tampered versions, which are saved
in TIFF format. See Fig. 3(b) for an example of this dataset.
g) The Wild Web dataset [21]: released in 2015, this
dataset collected all the images from the Web in contrast to
the previous datasets. Therefore, it represents the real-world
scenario and it is more difficult and challenging to identify the
tampered images in this dataset. It contains more than 13000
tampered images which are proved through strong experiment,
and these are found from the investigation of 90 such cases.
Most of the images are in JPEG format, where there are some
PNG, GIF or TIFF images. While most of the images are cut-
paste images, few copy-move and erase-fill images also exist
in this dataset, see Fig. 3(c) for an example.
Besides these datasets, several other datasets are available
publicly. However, we did not discuss them here as they are
not as frequently used for evaluation as many of the above-
mentioned datasets. Moreover, the access of those datasets are
often limited beyond the academic use.
III. M ETHODOLOGY: DATABASE C ONSTRUCTION
In this section, we briefly present our methodology to
construct the proposed dataset. Fig. 4 provides an illustration
of our SMIFD-500 construction strategy, which follows the
steps below:
• Step 1: Collect images from the popular social media.
• Step 2: Categorize images as original and manipulated.
• Step 3: Perform fine and coarse annotation.
• Step 4: Perform attribute-level annotation.
• Step 5: Generate ground truth (binary mask and at-
tributes) and save to database.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on June 16,2020 at 01:53:28 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 4: Workflow of the SMIFD database construction method.
a) Collect images from popular social media: We initiate
the database construction process by focusing on the most
appropriate media where the manipulated images are vastly
shared and available. Therefore, we primarily consider two
popular social media, called Facebook3 and Twitter4 as the
source to collect images. Before collecting the images, we
trained multiple experts with sufficient knowledge of image
forgery from both technical and social perspectives. The
technical knowledge helps us to better realize the image
contents and collect the probable manipulated images. The
social perspective helps us to identify and select certain user
groups, which share such manipulated images. After collecting
the images, we perform cross check/validation of each image
with three expert observers. Note that, in order to maintain
proper evaluation, we have collected both manipulated and
original images of equivalent image properties with respect to
the image quality and size.
b) Categorized images into original and manipulated im-
ages: This step consists of applying an additional verification
to categorize the images as original or manipulated. It is
performed by three observers’ agreement and further reverse
image search (using google-image search) in case an image is
found suspected to be an original or manipulated by anyone.
We simply discard an image if it remains susceptible after
performing the different steps of verification.
c) Perform fine and coarse annotation of the manipulated
images: The next step is to annotate the manipulated images
to provide different level of image details which is suitable
for different types of manipulation detection method as well
as the evaluation procedures. We provide two types of details:
fine and coarse. The fine details based annotation consists of
pixel-level details, which means that each image pixel will be
labelled as either original or manipulated. The coarse anno-
tation consists of simply drawing a bounding box around the
manipulated region. We exploit the popular VGG annotation
tool [7] to accomplish these tasks. While the fine annotation
is performed by drawing polygons, the coarse annotation is
performed with the rectangles. In Fig. 2, the examples in
the left column shows the overlayed annotated polygons and
the right column shows the outcome of these as a binary
mask, where the white pixels indicate the manipulated region.
However, one can exploit the binary mask from pixel-level
annotation and extract the region properties of the image
connected components to automatically obtain the rectangles
or bounding boxes. Note that, the original image does not need
the annotations as they do not contain any manipulation and
3 www.facebook.com
4 www.twitter.com
hence their ground truth will contain a single-label image and
empty bounding box.
d) Perform attribute-level annotation of the manipulated
images: Attribute-level annotation is a unique property of
our proposed SMIFD dataset. It requires high-level technical
expertise as well as sufficient general knowledge from social
and political perspectives. We perform two types of attribute
annotation: technical perspective – to label an image with
appropriate manipulation types (i.,e., spliced, copy-move or
in-painting) and social perspective – to label an image with
the motif of manipulation, i.,e., political, celebrity, general and
natural. Therefore, these types of annotation provide very rich
information about the image manipulation and hence can aid
the development of advanced IFD methods.
e) Generate ground truth (binary mask and attributes)
and save to database: This step reforms and accumulates all
types of annotations into appropriate format, combine them
together, associate them with the image and finally store
them into the dataset. The annotation reform is applied to
the polygons in order to generate binary masks from them. Fig. 5: Several examples of manipulated images from the
It is simply done by labelling each image pixel as original proposed SMIFD-500 dataset.
or manipulated based on its location, i.e., inside or outside of
polygons. Indeed, this binary mask can also be exploited to
extract the region properties of the image connected compo-
nents to automatically obtain the rectangles or bounding boxes.
Finally, these fine and coarse annotations are associated with
the attributes level annotations for each image.
Fig. 2 provides examples from the SMIFD-500 database and
its associated annotations, such as fine labeling, manipulation
type and motif attributes.

IV. F INAL DATASET, S TATISTICS AND D ISCUSSION

This section provides the details and relevant statistics of
the finalized dataset by analyzing its properties based on the
ground truths obtained from the labels and attributes.
The proposed SMIFD-500 dataset finally constitutes 500 Fig. 6: Histogram of the manipulated region coverage.
images, which are selected from a set of 800 initially col-
lected images. This is a balanced dataset, where each of the
original and manipulated image set contains 250 images. Fig
5 illustrates several examples of the images from this dataset.
Fig. 7(a) illustrates the distribution of the forgery types, from
First, we analyse the dataset based on the image-level
which it is evident that most (59.08%) of the manipulation
annotations. Therefore, we compute the manipulated region
concerns the image splicing. The next category of forgery
coverage as a measure for each image and then compute
is in-painting (37.62%). Very few images are manipulated
the histogram from the entire database. For a given image
with copy-move forgery. Fig. 7(b) provides the distribution
(binary mask as ground truth), the region coverage is simply
of the motifs/targets of manipulation. It is clear that while
computed by counting the total number of manipulated pixels
the celebrities (50.50%) are the primary target, the general
and dividing it by the total number of pixels in the image. Fig.
category (40.59%) also appears widely in the dataset. There
6 illustrates the histogram as the relevant statistics. We observe
are few manipulated images of the natural scene (6.93%) and
that, the manipulation in the collected dataset mostly occurs in
politicians (1.98%). Besides, it is clearly observed that the
relatively smaller area (less than 30% area) of the image. There
human (celebrities and politicians) are the primary target of
are very few images which consist of relatively larger region,
manipulation with the aim to create entertaining contents as
which is caused by the insertion of larger objects within the
well as spread mis-information.
image. The smaller manipulation region often consists of the
insertion of the smaller objects such as human faces. In future, we aim to extend this work as follows: (a) apply
Next, we analyse the dataset based on the attributes concern- the publicly available image manipulation tools and state-of-
ing the forgery types and the motifs/targets of manipulation. the-art IFD methods on our dataset to provide the benchmark
Therefore, we compute the distributions of the relevant in- and (b) extend this dataset by regularly collecting more images
formation from the attributes based ground truth information. to construct a set of 10000 images.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on June 16,2020 at 01:53:28 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

(a) Forgery types.
(b) Motifs of manipulation.
Fig. 7: Distribution of the (a) forgery types and (b) motifs of
manipulation in the dataset.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we proposed a novel social media IFD
database to evaluate the efficiency and generalizability of
the IFD methods. Besides providing a set of challenging
manipulated images, it provides the different types of ground
truth annotations from both technical and social communi-
cation perspectives. Therefore, it will be beneficial for the
community from several perspectives: (a) new benchmark
helps to understand the efficiency and generalizability of the
IFD methods; (b) attributes based annotations helps to develop
efficient methods by exploiting the information extracted from
them and (c) the interesting statistics highlighting the motifs
of image manipulation help to understand the trend of image
based misinformation spreading in the social media.
R EFERENCES
[1] I. Amerini, L. Ballan, R. Caldelli, A. Del Bimbo, L. Del Tongo, and
G. Serra. Copy-move forgery detection and localization by means of
robust clustering with j-linkage. Signal Processing: Image Communica-
tion, 28(6):659–669, 2013.
[2] G. K. Birajdar and V. H. Mankar. Digital image forgery detection
using passive techniques: A survey. Digital investigation, 10(3):226–
245, 2013.
[3] C. Boididou, S. E. Middleton, Z. Jin, S. Papadopoulos, D.-T. Dang-
Nguyen, G. Boato, and Y. Kompatsiaris. Verifying information with
multimedia content on twitter. Multimedia Tools and Applications,
77(12):15545–15571, 2018.
[4] C. Boididou, S. Papadopoulos, Y. Kompatsiaris, S. Schifferes, and
N. Newman. Challenges of computational verification in social mul-
timedia. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World
Wide Web, pages 743–748. ACM, 2014.
[5] V. Christlein, C. Riess, J. Jordan, C. Riess, and E. Angelopoulou. An
evaluation of popular copy-move forgery detection approaches. IEEE
Transactions on information forensics and security, 7(6):1841–1854,
2012.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on June 16,2020 at 01:53:28 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[6] J. Dong, W. Wang, and T. Tan. Casia image tampering detection
evaluation database. In 2013 IEEE China Summit and International
Conference on Signal and Information Processing, pages 422–426.
IEEE, 2013.
[7] A. Dutta and A. Zisserman. The VIA annotation software for images,
audio and video. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International
Conference on Multimedia, MM ’19, New York, NY, USA, 2019. ACM.
[8] S. Elkasrawi, A. Dengel, A. Abdelsamad, and S. S. Bukhari. What
you see is what you get? automatic image verification for online news
content. In 2016 12th IAPR Workshop on Document Analysis Systems
(DAS), pages 114–119. IEEE, 2016.
[9] I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville. Deep learning. MIT press,
2016.
[10] J. Gu, Z. Wang, J. Kuen, L. Ma, A. Shahroudy, B. Shuai, T. Liu,
X. Wang, G. Wang, J. Cai, et al. Recent advances in convolutional
neural networks. Pattern Recognition, 2017.
[11] Y.-F. Hsu and S.-F. Chang. Detecting image splicing using geometry
invariants and camera characteristics consistency. In 2006 IEEE Inter-
national Conference on Multimedia and Expo, pages 549–552. IEEE,
2006.
[12] M. Huh, A. Liu, A. Owens, and A. A. Efros. Fighting fake news:
Image splice detection via learned self-consistency. In Proceedings of
the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 101–117,
2018.
[13] T.-Y. Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan,
P. Dollár, and C. L. Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context.
In European conference on computer vision, pages 740–755. Springer,
2014.
[14] T.-T. Ng, S.-F. Chang, and Q. Sun. A data set of authentic and spliced
image blocks. Columbia University, ADVENT Technical Report, pages
203–2004, 2004.
[15] M. Oquab, L. Bottou, I. Laptev, and J. Sivic. Learning and transferring
mid-level image representations using convolutional neural networks.
In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern
recognition, pages 1717–1724, 2014.
[16] O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh, S. Ma,
Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. Bernstein, A. C. Berg, and
L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge. IJCV,
115(3):211–252, 2015.
[17] S. Sadeghi, S. Dadkhah, H. A. Jalab, G. Mazzola, and D. Uliyan. State
of the art in passive digital image forgery detection: copy-move image
forgery. Pattern Analysis and Applications, 21(2):291–306, 2018.
[18] D. Tralic, I. Zupancic, S. Grgic, and M. Grgic. Comofod—new database
for copy-move forgery detection. In Proceedings ELMAR-2013, pages
49–54. IEEE, 2013.
[19] B. Wen, Y. Zhu, R. Subramanian, T.-T. Ng, X. Shen, and S. Winkler.
Coverage – a novel database for copy-move forgery detection. In IEEE
International Conference on Image processing (ICIP), pages 161–165,
2016.
[20] W. A. Yue Wu and P. Natarajan. Mantra-net: Manipulation tracing
network for detection and localization of image forgerieswith anomalous
features. 2019.
[21] M. Zampoglou, S. Papadopoulos, and Y. Kompatsiaris. Detecting image
splicing in the wild (web). In 2015 IEEE International Conference on
Multimedia & Expo Workshops (ICMEW), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2015.
[22] M. Zampoglou, S. Papadopoulos, and Y. Kompatsiaris. Large-scale eval-
uation of splicing localization algorithms for web images. Multimedia
Tools and Applications, 76(4):4801–4834, 2017.
[23] M. Zampoglou, S. Papadopoulos, Y. Kompatsiaris, R. Bouwmeester,
and J. Spangenberg. Web and social media image forensics for news
professionals. In Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and
Social Media, 2016.
[24] L. Zheng, Y. Zhang, and V. L. Thing. A survey on image tampering
and its detection in real-world photos. Journal of Visual Communication
and Image Representation, 58:380–399, 2019.
[25] P. Zhou, X. Han, V. I. Morariu, and L. S. Davis. Learning rich
features for image manipulation detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1053–
1061, 2018.