I want to mention that if the photo of the body of person shown in the
website is "original" but the remaining part(remaining part of that
photo includes photo of lighting, sets etc.) of that photo is "fake"
then in this situation the photo of the body of the person would be
considered original or fake photo ?? Please provide accurate answer of
my above question. |
Request for Question Clarification by
tutuzdad-ga
on
21 Oct 2006 18:52 PDT
I would say the photo is neither. It is a "forgery". Momre
specifically, the photo is a "counterfeit". Consider these definitions
as an accurate answer:
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aforgery
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=define%3Acounterfeit
tutuzdad-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
shoaib-ga
on
21 Oct 2006 19:48 PDT
Tutuzdad researcher I would not completely agree with your above
answer because if the photo of the 'body of the person' in any photo
is '100% original' then it means that ONLY the photo of the body of
the person should be considered 100% original but if the remaining
part of that photo is fake then ONLY the remaining part of that photo
should be considered fake ?? Tutuzdad researcher please provide
response or answer of my above answer and thanks and best regards from
Shoaib.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
tutuzdad-ga
on
23 Oct 2006 06:28 PDT
The definition of "forgery" is the process of making OR ADAPTING
objects or documents with the intention to deceive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgery
The "original" body can ONLY be found on the "original" image and once
it is removed, altered or tampered with it becomes an unauthorized
COPY regardless of whether it is otherwise an accurate depiction of
the image in the original photo. This tampered photo, when combined
with the "fake" image does not create a combination fake/original
image, it creates a fake - a forgery. The intent is to decieve and
that is the test by which a forgery is judged.
If you were to take one of Picasso's original canvases, his original
paints and his original brushes and paint one of his unique paintings
down to the most minute detail, you do NOT have a "partial" original.
You have a 100% forgery - regardless of how you arrived at the end
result.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
tutuzdad-ga
on
23 Oct 2006 06:33 PDT
Let me give you another example: I happen to be in the forsensic
evidence field. I occassionally run across counterfeit currency.
Sometimes the number of the bills are cleverly changed by removing the
"$100" numerals from an original $100 bill and carefully affixing
those to an original $1 bill to make the lesser bill appear more
valuable to someone who doesn't examine it closely. The end result is
not two original bills with a value of $101, the end result is one
counterfeit bill that is absolutely worthless.
|
Clarification of Question by
shoaib-ga
on
23 Oct 2006 21:34 PDT
Tutuzdad researcher I have studied the forgery information provided at
the website address of :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgery
but I want to mention that at the above website address the forgery
information provided is about "whole of the photo", yes I agree with
that situation but at the above mentioned website address it is "not"
written ANYWHERE that if any photo is partially original and
partially fake then that photo should be considered 'TOTALLY FAKE' so
therefore it means that if the photo of the 'body of the person' in
any photo
is '100% original' then it means that ONLY the photo of the body of
the person should be considered 100% original but if the remaining
part of that photo is fake then ONLY the remaining part of that photo
should be considered fake ?? Tutuzdad researcher please provide
response or answer of my above answer and thanks and best regards from
Shoaib.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
tutuzdad-ga
on
25 Oct 2006 12:01 PDT
Actually I happen to be in the forensic evidence profession so I have
some extensive first-hand working knowledge of counterfeit and forgery
issues. Forged images are typically made up of ?original? images (or
portions thereof) that are intentionally manipulated so as to deceive
a viewer. It is not uncommon for bits and pieces of a forged image to
be ?original?, in fact this technique is much more common than an
image which is faked entirely. Images that are tampered, combined,
altered, changed or otherwise distorted and presented as
non-manipulated in an effort to persuade a viewer he is seeing an
original image are all considered forged images regardless of their
partially original content. Such manipulation affects the whole of the
image and not just a portion of it. Since the forged image becomes a
new image in itself (separate from the original) the new image is a
100% forgery, therefore the entire image is a forgery even though
portions of it were taken from a legitimate source.
I don?t know how I can be any clearer than that. Here are some notable
sources where forged images are discussed. Clearly, by forensic
standards, any manipulated photo in the context I outlined is indeed,
from a professional and legal perspective, considered a forgery in its
entirety:
Roland Piquepaille's Technology Trends
http://www.primidi.com/2004/07/05.html
Distinguishing Digital Image Origin via Higher Order Statistics
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/LukFriSPIE06_v9.pdf
Determining Digital Image Origin Using Sensor Imperfections
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/EI5685-29_Forensic.pdf
Detection of Copy-Move Forgery in Digital Images
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/copymove.pdf
Regards;
tutuzdad-ga
|
