top of page


Public·26 membres
Daniel Miller
Daniel Miller

The Forger Image

Only images can be dropped to the "Resources", the "Stamps" and the "LitSpheres" panels, when dropped, these will be saved automatically to their corresponding subdirectories in the Forger Documents directory.

The Forger image

Forgery is a white-collar crime that generally refers to the false making or material alteration of a legal instrument with the specific intent to defraud.[1][2] Tampering with a certain legal instrument may be forbidden by law in some jurisdictions but such an offense is not related to forgery unless the tampered legal instrument was actually used in the course of the crime to defraud another person or entity. Copies, studio replicas, and reproductions are not considered forgeries, though they may later become forgeries through knowing and willful misrepresentations.

This usage of "forgery" does not derive from metalwork done at a blacksmith's forge, but it has a parallel history. A sense of "to counterfeit" is already in the Anglo-French verb forger, meaning "falsify".

The similar crime of fraud is the crime of deceiving another, including through the use of objects obtained through forgery. Forgery is one of the techniques of fraud, including identity theft. Forgery is one of the threats addressed by security engineering.

In the 16th century, imitators of Albrecht Dürer's style of printmaking improved the market for their own prints by signing them "AD", making them forgeries. In the 20th century the art market made forgeries highly profitable. There are widespread forgeries of especially valued artists, such as drawings originally by Pablo Picasso, Paul Klee, and Henri Matisse.

Forgery is triable either way. A person guilty of forgery is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.[5]

A person is guilty of forgery if he or she makes a false instrument with the intention that it shall be used to induce another person to accept it as genuine and, by reason of so accepting it, to do some act, or to make some omission, to the prejudice of that person or any other person.[9]

Except as regards offences committed before the commencement of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 and except where the context otherwise requires, without prejudice to section 65(4)(a) of that Act, references to forgery must be construed in accordance with the provisions of that Act.[12]

Forgery is a crime in all jurisdictions within the United States, both state and federal.[1][2] Most states, including California, describe forgery as occurring when a person alters a written document "with the intent to defraud, knowing that he or she has no authority to do so."[13] The written document usually has to be an instrument of legal significance. Punishments for forgery vary widely. In California, forgery for an amount under $950[14] can result in misdemeanor charges and no jail time, while a forgery involving a loss of over $500,000 can result in three years in prison for the forgery plus a five-year "conduct enhancement" for the amount of the loss, yielding eight years in prison.[15] In Connecticut, forgery in the Third Degree, which is a class B misdemeanor[16] is punishable by up to 6 months in jail, a $1000 fine, and probation; forgery in the First Degree, which is a class C felony,[17] is punishable by a maximum 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000 fine, or both.[18]

Copy-move is one of the most commonly used image tampering operation, where a part of image content is copied and then pasted to another part of the same image. In order to make the forgery visually convincing and conceal its trace, the copied part may subject to post-processing operations such as rotation and blur. In this paper, we propose a polar cosine transform and approximate nearest neighbor searching based copy-move forgery detection algorithm. The algorithm starts by dividing the image into overlapping patches. Robust and compact features are extracted from patches by taking advantage of the rotationally-invariant and orthogonal properties of the polar cosine transform. Potential copy-move pairs are then detected by identifying the patches with similar features, which is formulated as approximate nearest neighbor searching and accomplished by means of locality-sensitive hashing (LSH). Finally, post-verifications are performed on potential pairs to filter out false matches and improve the accuracy of forgery detection. To sum up, the LSH based similar patch identification and the post-verification methods are two major novelties of the proposed work. Experimental results reveal that the proposed work can produce accurate detection results, and it exhibits high robustness to various post-processing operations. In addition, the LSH based similar patch detection scheme is much more effective than the widely used lexicographical sorting.

New collaborative research, published in the journal Royal Society Open Science, used high-precision measurements, chemical analysis and 3D imaging to demonstrate the forger was almost certainly Dawson.

However, the analysis revealed the forger was not a trained conservator. Some of the work shows inexpert skills - which resulted in fractured bones, the putty setting too fast and teeth cracking while being filed down.

Adolfo suggested they use lactic acid, and thereafter joined the group, finally becoming responsible for the chemical forgery lab. They notably had to respond to the challenge of the invention of the watermark.

This dataset contains 220 realistic forgeries created by hand in modern photo-editing software (GIMP and Affinity Photo) and covers various challenging tampering scenarios involving both object insertion and removal. The images were captured by four different cameras: Sony alpha57 (own dataset), Canon 60D (courtesy of dr Bin Li), Nikon D7000, Nikon D90 (RAISE dataset).

The ground truth maps contain 3 labels: authentic areas (black), important semantic changes to the content (white) and collateral damage (gray). Collateral damage corresponds to pixels that have been changed with respect to the original image, but still represent roughly the same content. Such situation occurs when the tampered area is blended with the background (e.g., when the forger has used a larger brush for copy-move tampering) or when the background needed to be slightly changed to seamlessly accommodate the forgery.

The PRNU signatures were obtained from 200 favorable natural images (Nikon and Canon cameras) or from 90 out of focus flat images (Sony). The correlation predictors were trained on 25,000 image patches chosen randomly from 50 diverse natural images (separate images). All camera models were trained on TIFF images and contain PRNU presence / absence models for square analysis windows of size 32, 48, 64, 96, 128, 192, and 256 px.

Originally, the dataset was created for realistic performance evaluation in our paper "Multi-scale Analysis Strategies in PRNU-based Tampering Localization" and contained fewer images. During subsequent studies, we have extended the dataset. For the sake of research reproducibility, a record of images used in each individual study is available for download here.

This is a dataset regarding the creation of forgery images. The dataset consists of 1000 original and 3000 forgery images generated from the original images. The original images have been retrieved from publicly available repositories. Three different models have been used for creating the forgery images: cut-paste, copy-move, and erase-filling. Both pre-processing (sharpening, color enhancement, resizing, blurring, regulating exposure) and post-processing (sampling, rotation, masking) techniques have been considered for the generation of the forgery images. The dataset can be used for research in the area of fake image identification. This dataset has been created in the context of the H2020 project SocialTruth.

The increasing popularity of the internet suggests that digital multimedia has become easier to transmit and acquire more rapidly. This also means that this multimedia has become more susceptible to tampering through forgery. One type of forgery, known as copy-move duplication, is a specified type that usually involves image tampering. In this study, a keypoint-based image forensics approach based on a superpixel segmentation algorithm and Helmert transformation has been proposed. The purpose of this approach is to detect copy-move forgery images and to obtain forensic information. The procedure of the proposed approach consists of the following phases. First, we extract the keypoints and their descriptors by using a scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT) algorithm. Then, based on the descriptor, matching pairs will be obtained by calculating the similarity between keypoints. Next, we will group these matching pairs based on spatial distance and geometric constraints via Helmert transformation to obtain the coarse forgery regions. Then, we refine these coarse forgery regions and remove mistakes or isolated areas. Finally, the forgery regions can be localized more precisely. Our proposed approach is a more robust solution for scaling, rotation, and compression forgeries. The experimental results obtained from testing different datasets demonstrate that the proposed method can obtain impressive precision/recall rates in comparison to state-of-the-art methods.

As a result of technological advances and the convenience of the internet, human beings are now able to easily access interesting multimedia from the internet and remake or tamper with it as they see fit. Copy-move forgery imaging is a special type of forgery that involves copying parts of an image and then pasting the copied parts into the same image. Hence, image forensics associated with copy-move forgery detection have become increasingly important in our networked society. The technology used in image forensics can be categorized into passive detection or active detection [1]. The active detection method requires prior information derived from an image to identify the image authenticity, such as watermarking. Contrary to active detection methods, passive detection methods are not required to obtain previous information on an image. Passive detection methods can utilize the advantages of the detective strategy to find the tampering regions. Hence, a large majority of image forgery detection methods adopt a passive-based strategy to perform the type of tampering identification discussed in the present study. Passive detection technology can be categorized into block-based methods [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] and keypoint-based methods [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. In the present study, we focus on the keypoint-based approach. 041b061a72

À propos

Bienvenue dans le groupe ! Vous pouvez communiquer avec d'au...


bottom of page