Talk:Digital asset management

Proposed merger of Digital Photo Management

I proposed merging Digital Photo Management into this page because it seems to cover a subtopic of the same field. As of now, there's not enough content to justify two separate pages, especially when we can just redirect.--Chaser (T) 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. · rodii · 02:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan to me also. Digital Photo Management is a smaller article, and the two would flow better as one page. -- 210.11.135.5 06:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC) (aka User:Calrion)[reply]

Merged.--Chaser T 07:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it media asset management. Photo management limit it only to a specific application. drvannie

I propose that DPM must be discussed under media asset management. There is currently nothing on MAM. (drvannie;21.11.2006)

If the photo is digital, then it's a digital asset and falls under the category of DAM. DAM is a subset of Enterprise content management. I directed MAM to the ECM page and made a note about DAM on that page as well as a note about ECM on this page. If there is anything special about managing photos that are neither digital nor similar to managing any other type of document content, it should be mentioned on that page. Oicumayberight 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is closed issue as "Digital Photo Management" does come to this page .. but I think it should not. A Digital Asset is a file of digital data that has had some sort of DRM applied to it. Any sort of digital data can be made into an asset by processing it through a digital rights tool, typically by encrypting it. Regardless .. a source file before DRM processing is just a file .. be it media, a PDF, Word Document, or data logger binary log file .. it is not a digital asset.

I therefore suggest separating Digital Media Management from Digital Rights Management and having Digital Photo Management redirect to the DMM page. — vulcan_ (talk contrib) 22:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is directly lifted off another without credit

Digital photo's are media assets, a sub catogary of digital asset management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvannie (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention that the bulk of the information in 'Digital asset management' was taken from a single source: http://www.techexchange.com/thelibrary/DAM.html.

That source is not credited on the page and furthermore, the article is old and there are no certifiable references to the many specific metrics it quotes and assertions it makes.

I suggest a complete overhaul. I'm not that knowledgeable about DAMs but am currently researching them for work but can work on it when that's complete if no one else is available.

Mahalie 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems very thorough and well written. If crediting techexchange.com is warranted, so be it. Perhaps the same author(s) from techexchange.com added it to the wikipedia. I don't think any of the information should be removed. The only things I think would make the article more useful is a list of specific solutions (hardware and software) and maybe subdividing the categories into separate pages (e.g. DAM workflow, DAM cataloging, DAM distribution, DAM commerce, DAM Legal). Oicumayberight 19:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well written doesn't make it encyclopedia material. The entire article reads like a sales pitch or a product presentation.

Too much market-speak, too little fact. I say overhaul. --Ceriel Nosforit 10:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with someone rewording the content, as long as the meaning of the content stays in one form or another. Oicumayberight 18:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of software packages

There is no link to a list of software, such as the one about Comparison of image viewers. Shall we make some? I did some research on the subject and I can contribute. Connectionfailure 08:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that ImageNet should be included on this page (Providers: SAAS section). After reviewing the company website, ImageNet's product/service offerings seem more directed towards document management/document imaging rather than DAM. kcmarshall

After creating the article "List of Digital Asset Management Systems, seeing it populated with software by others who merely linked to their company's home page rather than creating a WP article and linking there, then seeing the article deleted, most of those companies are now back in this article! How ironic. There's a good list at The Macintosh Products Guide [1] in Design & Print, sub-category Asset Databases, but it's hard to link directly to that because it's the results page generated by the site's database. What's the best way to add that to the External Links section? Connectionfailure (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not helpful to people who want software to help them manage their digital photos. Digital Photo Management currently redirects to this article. The article image organizer is much more helpful to those people -- it has a list of software with comparisons. Is there a difference between "digital photo management" software and "image organizer" software? I think this article should answer that question near the top. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger of Digital asset management system

The DAMS article is largely replicative of work already here and I think the two concepts can still be treated well in a single article. I'm not thinking of a simple redirect, though, I'd like to capture a couple things from the DAMS page, if nothing else the two book references. Any thoughts on this, anyone? --Joe Decker 20:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: No difference. Oicumayberight 20:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Did a few bold things in the merge, folks might want to look at the changes carefully to see if I've screwed anything up.--Joe Decker 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ns1.rtatours.com Roufique Hossain 03:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtatours (talk • contribs)

Digitizing Traditional Image and Fabrics section seems misplaced

The section titled Digitizing Traditional Image and Fabrics is off-topic and weirdly specific to fabrics, which is a pretty uncommon application of digital asset management. Should this be deleted or moved elsewhere? Libraryhead 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed copyvio content

I've just removed a large chunk of this article; it was copyvio content taken uncited from http://www.techexchange.com/thelibrary/DAM.html, explaining the odd tone and focus on fabrics. The article was from 1999, anyways, so maybe a cleaner slate will allow for a more current take on DAM. Dialectric 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providers has been shruk to 5 players in a field of dozens.

I think that the recent edit by Ronz to remove the external links in the page was a necesity, but I am questioning the removal of the names of all but a very small number of the providers from the section. Any objections to rolling back to the prior page with the links removed and the content being modified to list rather than add marking speak for each player?

Jlegue (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, see below. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article was mostly lists of non-notable entries

In addition to removing all the linkspam, I removed the lists with non-notable entries. I was thinking about an WP:AFD or WP:PROD, but I think the article is salvageable if we can get it referenced. The lists were a distraction, attracting linkspam, and inappropriate per WP:LIST. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to providers

In December 2007 linkspam clean-up has been made to the Providers section however there are still references to Adobe, Apple, Agfa and ResourceSpace. I suggest to move these references to a new article "List of Digital Asset Management systems" also including some of the removed links. Glux (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Ronz says, this was attracting a lot of vanity insertions, references to non-notable providers, etc. There are plenty of other places to look for this kind of information; and Wikipedia is not a directory service. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the approach taken for other types of software, e.g. List of content management systems. Glux (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed expanding the article

I have redirected "Media asset management" to this article. I think the article should be expanded (or overhauled) with new headings, like: Definition, History, Characteristics. The section Providers should be renamed. Glux (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIIM Content relevant to DAM

Here are some materials published by the Association of Intelligent Information Management (AIIM) magazine publication (Infonomics) on digital asset management available for quotes and references...

What (exactly) is DAM? - Infonomics - The publication for intelligent information management This one is quoted bellow due to requirement for free account registration which may be a hassle for some.

Digital Asset Management Systems vs. Web Content Management Systems: Do You Really Understand the Difference? - Infonomics - The publication for intelligent information management This one looks at when do you need a DAM system as well as differences between DAM and WCM and it's viewable to public.

"What (exactly) is DAM?

While digital asset management (DAM) enjoys nearly universal recognition as a core component of organizations' enterprise content management strategies along with Web content management (WCM), document management (DM), and related technologies, a consistent and clear definition of DAM isn't nearly as widely held. But before we answer that question, another poses itself, What exactly is a digital asset and how does it differ from content or rich media?

As the name implies, a digital asset is media that by its very existence represents specific value that characterized it as an asset with its digital basis offering the ability to easily create new iterations capitalizing on this value. While the music coming from your teenager's bedroom may have no value to you, once it begins to sell millions of copies worldwide, it becomes a corporate asset for the rights holder. Thus, while content should be informative, entertaining, or at least descriptive, a digital asset doesn't even need to be enjoyable, but it must have value regardless of the context that is drawn from consuming it.

Strategically, the owners of these digital assets are confronted with two overriding challenges-the need to exploit this value as aggressively as possible, and the need to safeguard the material by vigorously enforcing the rights and permissions associated with it. Since the ability to both protect and fully utilize an asset is dependent on knowing a lot about the material, digital asset management as a methodology makes extensive use of metadata to preserve this descriptive information throughout the asset's lifecycle. For example, we might instinctively know that an image is the right one for a proposed advertising campaign, but without the ability to identify the rights holders, write a specific caption based on the context of the image, and transform the image into a usable format, it simply has no value. Thus, the concept of content plus metadata creates our second definition for a digital asset.

As a result, a full-fledged DAM system provides the necessary technologies to support all of the processes involved in making effective use of an organization's digital assets-managing both the content itself as well as the underlying metadata that defines it as an asset. This includes the ability to automatically ingest or import digital assets into a centralized repository where they can be easily searched and accessed, along with additional functionality allowing users to transform and edit, package, and distribute their digital assets. In supporting the overall administration of an organization's digital assets, a DAM system should also support usage tracking, asset-centric workflow, automated system management, and the enforcement of the rights and permissions associated with each asset.

This approach differs significantly from many aspects of the broader content management field that take as the starting point the finished product. For example, to create an effective WCM system, you must first examine how the page is designed, define a template encapsulating the key areas of interest, and create systems for pulling in relevant content. DAM is just the opposite in that the starting point is the content itself with the ultimate goal of pushing it out to a host of display devices and mediums. As a simple analogy illustrates, if a WCM system provides an organization's Web storefront, DAM serves as the behind-the-scenes warehouse in which content inventory is stored, packaged, and shipped to this Web-based outlet…as well as similar stores across the worlds of broadcast, print, and a variety of other distribution channels.

This is important for three key reasons. First, most organization's need to distribute their digital assets across a number of outlets and require a system that can ensure consistent and simplified usage across all of these channels. The most common definition of ECM, which is DAM + WCM + DM, doesn't reflect the reality that users need to integrate their digital asset repositories with their print production systems, broadcast operations, electronic catalogs, and other channel-specific technologies that drive their businesses.

Secondly, most digital assets are actually compound assets comprised of multiple elements. Even something as apparently simple as a book might have fifty distinct digital assets associated with it, as well as multiple versions of the finished product. Likewise, a marketing campaign might have thousands of intertwined assets being used across print, television, and electronic mediums. DAM can track all of these individual assets throughout their usages so that updates, such as changes in product specifications not impacting the overall creative process, can be automatically rendered across each application.

Finally, users will almost always want to return to the original asset for subsequent reuses. For example, getting the most precise version of an image means starting with the original, untouched asset rather than relying on a derivative that has been previously manipulated. Likewise, the ability to fully access both the history and rights associated with an asset are critical to decisions regarding future uses.

Ultimately, DAM isn't simply about the addition of rich media functionality to existing content management systems, but rather is about providing the foundation for implementing ECM strategies by ensuring the long-term interoperability of digital assets across multiple applications. "

How has this entry become so uninformative in the past year or two?

I'm a bit disappointed in the way that useful, usable information has gradually disappeared from this entry over the recent past. It now says almost nothing that is not obvious to one and all. Perhaps application of some of the wiki guidelines, rather too rigidly, has spoiled it. I remember someone called ronz deleting really useful information on the grounds that it was "not notable". rather annoying.

Plingsby (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots of DAM Systems

This page appears to be under attack from those wanting to use it for promotion of their own products or services as occurred previously when lists of vendors were included. Given that there are hundreds of DAM systems out there (covering both closed and open source and all points in between), I would argue that if we allow one then it validates allowing multiple screenshots from numerous vendors - including ones more notable than current examples. If we permit this kind of edit, the page will once again be filled up with vendor spam as they each argue that their product is worthy of inclusion over and above another.

It isn't hard to find some screengrabs of DAM systems from a wide range of sources (notably the website of the actual vendors - where these screengrabs should be kept). It is much more difficult, however, to get impartial information about DAM systems that everyone can agree on. I disagree with the previous comment, I think this page is now mostly representative of the state of the DAM technology and provides a fair and balanced summary of what is currently available. After that, the reader has a wide variety of options for discovering more and making their own decisions about how reliable the information sources are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigrich73 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it would be useful to show a visual example of a DAM system, as with other articles e.g. Spreadsheet. Using an open source system is sensible and would avoid any fair use / copyright issues when using screen grabs from proprietary systems, and this is possible the reason behind using OpenOffice.org for articles such as Spreadsheet / Word Processing etc. There are a limited number of open source DAM systems. I know only of ResourceSpace and Razuna. There are 'frameworks' in addition (such as DSpace) which are not complete out-of-the-box systems.

I manage the ResourceSpace project and can see how it would look like I am attempting to promote that product, however I do feel that an example would be a good addition to the article and think that an open source system such as ResourceSpace/Razuna would be good for the reasons stated. I don't think it's fair to undo edits because you think that the person doing the edit is not neutral / unbiased, when in my view the neutrality of the edit itself should be all that is considered. --Dan Huby (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. The reason I don't think we can show a screenshot is that unlike spreadsheets where there are basically two desktop based alternatives, there are hundreds of DAM vendors and more open source vendors than ResourceSpace and Razuna. I'm aware of EnterMedia, Nuxeo and FocusOpen who all claim their software is open source. Do we allow each of these just because of that fact? By next year, that list is likely to have grown still further, so we could have more than 5 screengrabs if they all decide to add them and cite this as a precedent.

I'm also not sure that DSpace can be ruled out for being a framework when the entry is about Digital Asset Management, not Digital Asset Management Software, Digital Asset Management Applications or DAM Systems. The opening line of this article (correctly) indicates that Digital Asset Management refers to management tasks and decisions, not a specific class of software application, so it being out of the box or otherwise isn't a fair reason for exclusion if we're to keep to the definition established by the article.

Also, I take your point about screen grabs and the copyright issues, but what happens if a proprietary vendor decides to provide a screenshot of their own app under a licence that allows re-use? There's a good number that have Wikipedia entries that are considered notable (e.g. Extensis or North Plains to name just two of many). Just because they are proprietary does not make them bad examples of DAM system - in some cases they have been in development for decades and have millions of users (see Picdar now acquired by Nstein who were selling DAMs in the 1980s to early adopters). If proprietary vendors have supplied the material and permitted it to be used then there would be nothing to stop them adding screenshots also. After that there are going to be a lot of 'me too' entries and pretty soon you'd get a patchwork of screenshots of all kinds of systems and a complex decision about keeping or removing each of them and edit warring when some think they have been unfairly treated.

In summary, I think allowing screengrabs is a can of worms that is going to be difficult to close once opened. As a compromise, I would go with a separate page that showed a list of DAM systems (including screenshots - subject to copyright restrictions). I think this was the approach used some time ago but the list page was removed because it was Wikipedia policy not to include lists. In this specific case, however, I think it's detrimental and causing a lot of problems of the type we have been debating.

The main Digital Asset Management page should contain impartial and incontrovertible information, so I would argue that having a separate list of software that was specifically related to DAM would help reduce spam and controversy about edits as well as offering a level playing field rather than attempting to devise a complex policy for approving/rejecting edits. If that is not acceptable, then simply not showing any screengrabs would be the only practical alternative. I would be interested to hear feedback on all this. Bigrich73 (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting your points across. On the whole, I agree. I thought you were reverting my edits because you thought I was biased or seeking to promote the project I manage, because your reasons in the edit log were along those lines and not the above. I quote:

(CoI/NPOV - original edit made by author of software. Wikipedia is not the place for spam, put screenshots of your own app on your own website.

I will leave the article as it is. --Dan Huby (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very interested on getting your DAM program listed on Wikipedia by the history of your changes to this page and if you sell software development services and hosting for this software then many people would think you are in conflict of interest and cannot comment without bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.223.1.129 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Huby has explained his position and while I did make the comments referred to, following our discussion I acknowledge that his intention was to add content to the article. I think we have resolved this edit decision satisfactorily and I see no reason to re-open it. Bigrich73 (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken or Egg (DAM vs. MAM)

The article states that Media Asset Management is a subset of DAM. The reference given is a book, not an online citation, I was under the impression that only online citations count? I will have to read up on that...

Anyway, the above claim irritated me so much, I went off and got myself an account for Wikipedia. Now I feel less bold. So before I start editing, I would like to find out what general consensus might be behind the scenes?

I have been working in the media industry for more than 20 years, and Media Asset Management systems have existed long before either media or even management systems went digital. To recording studios, broadcasters, archivists etc. media asset management has been around since day one of their operation, to know what exists, where it is, etc. Of course the advent of first computer databases and then digital media assets has put a focus on these, as have the multitude of formats, outlets etc. But essentially MAM is at the core, together with DM and WCM. Finding a citation for this model is fantastically difficult as everyone in the market tries to sell their DMAM, so now I am stumped. Shall Wikipedia, by only reporting what is online, speak untruth, or shall I re-word the entry but be shot down by anyone who disagrees?

I am looking forward to some guidance - thank you! And if this is completely the wrong place to raise this, please feel free to cut and paste it somewhere else! Thank you! Wonderwombat (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding DAM for Dummies

Wiley have recently released a DAM for Dummies book. https://info.bynder.com/hubfs/wikipedia%20DAM%20for%20Dummies.pdf The book is available through Bynder.com - I have filled in their form and they sent the ebook to my email address. I would like to put the ebook link in the external links section of the page - as it is a great resource which would really be of benefit to anyone who wanted to learn more about digital asset management. Someone keeps taking it down on the grounds that the book is just promoting Bynder - but it really is not, and I gave my own details to Bynder to get the book so that others don't have to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David8david8 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add a link to this (June 6, 2017 and a few other recent DAM publications (there are several that need to be added) and it was reverted. This page needs a lot of help as the material is quite dated! Qbusiness (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding New Content

I tried to add a link to this (June 6, 2017 and a few other recent DAM publications (there are several that need to be added) and it was reverted. This page needs a lot of help as the material is quite dated! I also tried to make some updates the digital asset page as I don't agree with the definition for digital asset there currently and it was revoked. There needs to be consensus on these pages--people are confused enough about what DAM/MAM are enough--why add to the confusion? More resources/more knowledge and an actual discussion here is warranted. I propose adding several books to the Further Reading section and also putting them in chronological order of publication. Why were my edits removed? @Bigrich73 Let's work together to make this page better instead of calling knowledge sharing spam, because it's not. Many of the resources on this page are from DAM vendors, DAM analysts and DAM experts--not spammers. That is an inappropriate term for it.

Here are a few of the books that I propose we add:

Theresea Regali http://rosenfeldmedia.com/books/digital-and-marketing-asset-management/
Stephanie Diamond & Emily Kolvitz https://info.bynder.com/dam-for-dummies
Elizabeth Keathley https://books.google.com/books/about/Digital_Asset_Management.html?id=C5mJAwAAQBAJ&source=kp_cover
Henrik de Gyor https://www.amazon.com/Global-State-Rights-Management-2016-ebook/dp/B01M3361Y9/ref=la_B019ZXNPPO_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496863227&sr=1-5

Please give valid reasons for why these resources should not be added. Qbusiness (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't add any of those other books though, only the Bynder one (2nd on your list above). Hiding your spam in other sources will not help you to get away with adding commercial content to this page. Furthermore, it is not a book list, the titles are for reference purposes (to support the text). You also added an external link to your client/employer, Bynder in one of the other edits, which further weakens your impartiality case and you haven't contributed to the text of the description, only added links or references to commercial vanity publishing sponsored by the firm in question. This is clearly non-neutral spam and a conflict of interest. It is being done deliberately for marketing/SEO purposes (i.e. it's shady spam which should be removed). You will get bored of adding your spammy links to this page long before I get fed up of removing them. Bigrich73 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the flagged problems

I am talking on some of the problems in this article.

with respect to the See Also section: I think these following topics are not even tangentially connected to DAM and so removed them :

Collaborative software
Data proliferation
Desktop publishing
Digital artifactual value
Digital preservation
Extensible Metadata Platform
Image retrieval
Information lifecycle management - too broad in scope and not about digital objects as such
Z39.87 ANSI standard for metadata

so I have removed them from the list. -- after taking a closer look at these I have removed them also:

Hierarchical storage management is about file systems
Non-functional requirements motherhood statements only of interest to someone implementing a DAM system
Preservation metadata describes metadata of interest to DAM but is clearly in its infantcy.
Repository OSID| A one paragraph article written in 2005 .. OSID seems to be a dead issue

Can I also remove the maintenance template from the section ?

I would also like to remove the Layout Maintenance template from this section .. the much shorter list is now tidy

— vulcan_ (talk contrib) 12:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the maintenance templates from the See also section some time after you removed the above mentioned links. You could have done that yourself; see the guide Help:Maintenance template removal. --Pipetricker (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lede does not ("yet"?) mention the "automated" enforcement of copyright rules

This comment is "as of" when this version of the article -- the "12:37, 25 July 2019" version -- was the current (latest) version.

The lede sentence says something about "to ensure that the owner, and possibly their delegates, can perform operations on the data files.[1]", but it does not mention the automated enforcement of copyright rules^[1], which may involve trying to ensure that some other persons -- (other than the owner, and those persons who have obtained permission from the owner) -- can NOT have certain kinds of access to the data files ... (including, in some cases, are prevented from having even "read-only" access to read [or listen to] [or "view"] certain content.)

According to [the online book pointed to by a link from] footnote "[1]" (see the end of that lede sentence),

In its simplest form, a digital asset management system provides a secure repository that facilitates the creation, management, organization, production, distribution, and, potentially, monetization of media files identified as digital assets.

Maybe that quote should be added -- as a "quote" field value -- to [the {{cite book}} template in] the "ref" tag for that footnote -- footnote number "[1]". (If so, then the page number -- page 12 -- probably should also be added. I noticed that the article does already have a "{{Page numbers needed}}" template [instance].)

I do not know how much "mentioning" (in this article) of the "automated" enforcement of copyright rules would be "too much" or "not enough". However, since that source (see the "<blockquote>d" sentence above) does include ['mentioning'] "monetization", I think there should be at least some cross-referencing to [the Wikipedia article about] "Digital rights management". (right?)

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ (See [the Wikipedia article about] "Digital rights management")

Lack of Citations

Hello,

Compared to what I've seen on other similar articles, this article does not have nearly as many citations. However, I am finding a handful of articles that cover the information here as I'm doing research online, and I have been adding them into the body of the page. Nojoi4l (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] (See [the Wikipedia article about] "Digital rights management")

[1]