Talk:Digital asset management

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. · rodii · 02:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merger of Digital Photo Management 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List of software packages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Merger of Digital asset management system 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Digitizing Traditional Image and Fabrics section seems misplaced 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I've removed copyvio content 

message: 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)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Yes, see below. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Providers has been shruk to 5 players in a field of dozens. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article was mostly lists of non-notable entries

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  References to providers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed expanding the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How has this entry become so uninformative in the past year or two? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Screenshots of DAM Systems 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chicken or Egg (DAM vs. MAM) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adding DAM for Dummies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adding New Content  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fixing the flagged problems 

message: 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(See [the Wikipedia article about] "Digital rights management"), 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  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 "" 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 "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)
thread_title:  The lede does not ("yet"?) mention the "automated" enforcement of copyright rules  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lack of Citations