PATENT DOCUMENT

Publication Number: US-10489734-B2
Application Number: US-201514663818-A
Country: US
Kind Code: B2

Title: Managed assessment of submitted digital content

Abstract:
Methods and systems for managing assessment of media content electronically submitted to a network-based media distribution system. A submitter can prepare a media package that is associated with a particular media asset (e.g. media title), and then electronically submit the media package to the media distribution system. The media distribution system can then process the media package to produce various components that are used by the media distribution system to electronically distribute media content of the media asset. According to one aspect, the media distribution system can manage a review process on the various components so that the components can be individually approved or rejected. According to another aspect, embodiments pertain to a reviewer&#39;s workspace that can assist a user in reviewing the submitted media content. According to still another aspect, embodiments can utilize a plurality of reviewers to review various media assets that have been submitted.

Claims:
What is claimed is: 
     
       1. A computer-implemented method for reviewing digital assets to be made available through a media distribution system, the method comprising:
 receiving, at one or more processors, component data for a first digital asset, the component data comprising a plurality of encoded media files for the first digital asset; 
 validating, prior to submission to a reviewer device, that the component data for the first digital asset satisfies one or more requirements; 
 causing display of a user interface to present two or more non-approved media files of the plurality of encoded media files for the first digital asset included in the component data, wherein the user interface is configured to present each of the two or more non-approved media files of the first digital asset to be reviewed separately from each other; and 
 making available the first digital asset for distribution by the media distribution system in response to receiving messages indicating approval of each of a designated subset of files of the plurality of encoded media files for the first digital asset, wherein the designated subset is associated with a particular geographical region, and wherein making available the first digital asset for distribution by the media distribution system includes making available the first digital asset for distribution to the particular geographical region. 
 
     
     
       2. The method as recited in  claim 1 , wherein the method comprises:
 recording an approval or rejection for each of the two or more non-approved media files. 
 
     
     
       3. The method as recited in  claim 1 , wherein the method comprises:
 receiving an approval for at least one but not all of the two or more non-approved media files of the component data; and 
 recording the approval for the at least one but not all of the two or more non-approved media files of the component data. 
 
     
     
       4. The method as recited in  claim 1 , wherein the user interface is configured to support individual playback of the two or more non-approved media files of the component data. 
     
     
       5. A method for reviewing digital media files for a media asset to be made available to or at a media distribution system, the method comprising:
 selecting, at one or more processors, a component set associated with a first digital asset for review, the selected component set comprising two or more non-approved media files of the first digital asset; 
 validating, prior to submission to a reviewer device, that the component set associated with the first digital asset satisfies one or more validation requirements; 
 assigning the component set to the reviewer device; 
 presenting, via a user interface associated with the reviewer device, metadata of the first digital asset associated with the selected component set; 
 receiving an indication of approval, rejection, or modification of the metadata of the first digital asset; 
 presenting, via the user interface, the two or more non-approved media files of the first digital asset for review, wherein the user interface is configured to present each of the two or more non-approved media files of the first digital asset to be reviewed separately from each other; 
 receiving an indication of approval or rejection of individual media files from the two or more non-approved media files of the first digital asset; and 
 making available the first digital asset for distribution by the media distribution system in response to receiving messages indicating approval of each of a designated subset of files of the two or more non-approved media files for the first digital asset, wherein the designated subset is associated with a particular geographical region, and wherein making available the first digital asset for distribution by the media distribution system includes making available the first digital asset for distribution to the particular geographical region. 
 
     
     
       6. The method as recited in  claim 5 , wherein receiving the indication of approval or rejection of the individual media files of the two or more non-approved media files comprises:
 receiving an approval indication with a problem for at least one of the individual media files. 
 
     
     
       7. The method as recited in  claim 5 , wherein receiving the indication of approval or rejection of the individual media files of the two or more non-approved media files comprises:
 receiving a selection of one of the individual media files; and receiving an indication of a problem with the selected media file. 
 
     
     
       8. The method as recited in  claim 7 , wherein receiving the indication of approval or rejection of the individual media files of the two or more non-approved media files comprises:
 after receiving the indication of the problem, receiving an indication of approval of the selected media file. 
 
     
     
       9. The method as recited in  claim 7 , wherein receiving the indication of approval or rejection of the individual media files of the two or more non-approved media files comprises:
 after receiving the indication of the problem, receiving an indication of rejection of the selected media file. 
 
     
     
       10. The method as recited in  claim 7 , wherein the first digital asset is associated with a content provider, and wherein receiving the indication of approval or rejection of the individual media files of the two or more non-approved media files comprises:
 after receiving the indication of the problem, receiving an indication of rejection of the selected media file; and 
 notifying the content provider of the problem with the selected media file. 
 
     
     
       11. At least one non-transitory computer readable medium comprising:
 instructions stored thereon, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
 receive component data for a first digital asset, the component data comprising a plurality of media files of the first digital asset; 
 prior to submission to a reviewer device, validate that the component data for the first digital asset satisfies one or more validation requirements; 
 generate a user interface to display two or more non-approved media files of the plurality of media files of the first digital asset included in the component data, wherein the user interface is configured to present each of the two or more non-approved media files of the component data to be reviewed separately; 
 receive one or more messages indicating individual approval of one or more of the two or more non-approved media files of the component data; and 
 make available the first digital asset for distribution by a media distribution system in response to receiving messages indicating approval of each of a designated subset of files of the plurality of media files for the first digital asset, wherein the designated subset is associated with a particular geographical region, and wherein making available the first digital asset for distribution by the media distribution system includes making available the first digital asset for distribution to the particular geographical region. 
 
 
     
     
       12. At least one non-transitory computer readable medium comprising:
 instructions stored thereon, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: 
 select a component set for review, the component being associated with a first digital asset, the component set comprising two or more non-approved digital media files of the first digital asset; 
 validate, prior to submission to a reviewer device, that the component set associated with the first digital asset satisfies one or more validation requirements; 
 assign the component set to a reviewer; 
 present, via a user interface associated with the reviewer device, metadata of the first digital asset associated with the component set; 
 receive a first indication of approval, rejection, or modification of the metadata of the first digital asset; 
 present, via the user interface, the two or more non-approved digital media files of the component set for review, wherein the user interface is configured to present each of the two or more non-approved digital media files of the component set to be reviewed separately from each other; 
 receive an indication of approval or rejection of individual media files from the two or more non-approved digital media files; and 
 make available the first digital asset for distribution by a media distribution system in response to receiving messages indicating approval of each of a designated subset of files of the two or more non-approved digital media files for the first digital asset, wherein the designated subset is associated with a particular geographical region, and wherein making available the first digital asset for distribution by the media distribution system includes making available the first digital asset for distribution to the particular geographical region. 
 
     
     
       13. A computer-implemented method for reviewing digital media assets comprising:
 receiving, at one or more processors, a submission of component data comprising two or more electronic files for a first digital asset; 
 validating that the component data satisfies one or more requirements; 
 individually encoding each of the two or more electronic files into one or more encoding formats to yield a plurality of encoded electronic files; 
 upon validation that the component data satisfies the one or more requirements and encoding each of the two or more electronic files, initiating display of a user interface configured to present the two or more encoded electronic files to be reviewed separately from each other; and 
 making available the first digital asset for distribution by a media distribution system in response to receiving messages indicating approval of each of a designated subset of files of the two or more electronic files for the first digital asset, wherein the designated subset is associated with a particular geographical region, and wherein making available the first digital asset for distribution by the media distribution system includes making available the first digital asset for distribution to the particular geographical region. 
 
     
     
       14. The computer-implemented method of  claim 1 , wherein the two or more non-approved media files include a first file and a second file, the first file storing a first version of video content of the first digital asset and the second file storing a second version of the video content of the first digital asset. 
     
     
       15. The computer-implemented method of  claim 14 , wherein the first version of the video content has a first resolution and the second version of the video content has a second resolution. 
     
     
       16. The computer-implemented method of  claim 1 , wherein the two or more non-approved media files include a first file and a second file, the first file storing a first version of audio content of the first digital asset and the second file storing a second version of the audio content of the first digital asset. 
     
     
       17. The computer-implemented method of  claim 16 , wherein the first version of the audio content includes dialogue recorded in a first language and the second version of the audio content has includes the dialogue recorded in a second language. 
     
     
       18. The computer-implemented method of  claim 1 , wherein the two or more non-approved media files include a first file and a second file, the first file storing audio content of the first digital asset and the second file storing video content of the first digital asset. 
     
     
       19. The computer-implemented method of  claim 1 , further comprising:
 receiving one or more messages indicating rejection of a first media file of the two or more non-approved media files and approval of a second media file of the two or more non-approved media files; and 
 transmitting a request for resubmission of one or more rejected media files associated with the first digital asset, the request identifying the first media file in response to the rejection.

Description:
BACKGROUND 
     Today, online stores, such as the iTunes™ Store provided by Apple Inc. of Cupertino, Calif., allow customers (i.e., online users) via the Internet to purchase or rent media items (such as music, videos) or software programs. Often, at online stores, numerous digital items are made available and are provided by various different providers, such as music labels, movie companies, and application developers. Software tools, such as iProducer™ and iTunes Connect™ available from Apple Inc., can assist providers with online submission of digital items to the iTunes™ Store. 
     Since submission involves transmission of digital files over the Internet to online stores for distribution, the submission process can be time consuming to a submitter. When the digital files are large or voluminous, the transmission of the digital files for the submission can take a substantial duration of time. Even after the time consuming transmission has been endured, the digital files of the submission may fail quality checks. That is, submissions of digital files, such as media items, are typically encoded and then reviewed before being made available for distribution. The review of submissions is also time consuming and often the submissions are rejected due to some part of the submissions being defective, wrong or of poor quality. In such cases, the submitter is typically notified of the problem(s) with the prior submission. The submitter can then act to correct the problem(s) and resubmit the entire submission. 
     Unfortunately, however, given that submissions are often rejected and then later resubmitted, performing quality review of submissions can be inefficient since reviewers can be required to re-review submissions. Consequently, there is a need for improved approaches to manage review of submissions of digital assets for online distribution. 
     SUMMARY 
     The invention pertains to methods and systems for managing assessment of media content electronically submitted to a network-based media distribution system. A submitter can prepare a media package that is associated with a particular media asset (e.g., media title), and then electronically submit the media package to the network-based media distribution system. The network-based media distribution system can then process the media package to produce various components that are used by the network-based media distribution system to electronically distribute media content of the media asset to one or more geographic markets. 
     According to one aspect of one or more embodiments, prior to permitting distribution of the various components, the network-based media distribution system can manage a review process on the various components. In this regard, according to one embodiment, the network-based distribution system can facilitate enabling a reviewer to review individual components so that the components can be individually approved or rejected. Advantageously, a submitter (e.g., content provider) for media content can be advised to resubmit media content for those components that have been rejected. 
     According to another aspect of one or more embodiments, a reviewer&#39;s workspace can assist a reviewer in reviewing the submitted media content. In reviewing the components for the particular media asset, the reviewer&#39;s workspace can support a graphical user interface to assist the reviewer in reviewing the media content (namely, components for the particular media asset). According to still another aspect of one or more embodiments, the network-based media distribution system can utilize a plurality of reviewers to review various media assets that have been submitted to a network-based media distribution system for distribution. 
     Embodiment of the invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a method, system, device, or apparatus (including graphical user interface and computer readable medium). Several embodiments of the invention are discussed below. 
     As a method for review of digital media assets submitted to a media distribution system, one embodiment can, for example, include at least the acts of: receiving a media package pertaining to a media title and including a plurality of media assets for the media title; creating a component container for the media title; encoding the plurality of media assets for the media title; placing the encoded media assets into the component container; forwarding the component container to a review queue for subsequent review; retrieving, subsequent to the forwarding, from the review queue a component container to be reviewed; and enabling review of individual components within the component container, wherein a reviewer is able to individually approve or reject the individual components within the component container. 
     As a for reviewing digital media assets for a media title to be made available from a media distribution system, one embodiment can, for example, include at least the acts of: receiving a component container for a media title; presenting at least a plurality of non-approved components of the component container; enabling review of individual components within the component container, the individual components being able to be individually reviewed including at least the plurality of non-approved components; and enabling individual approval of one or more of the plurality of non-approved components. 
     As a method for reviewing digital media assets for a media title to be made available from a media distribution system, one embodiment can, for example, include at least the acts of: selecting a component set for review based on a priority associated with the component set, the component set being associated with the media title; assigning the component set to a reviewer; presenting metadata of the media title associated with the component set; receiving an indication of approval or rejection or modification of the metadata of the media title by a reviewer; presenting, for the reviewer, at least a plurality of non-approved components of the component set; and receiving an indication of approval or rejection of individual components within the component set by the reviewer, the individual components being able to be individually reviewed including at least the plurality of non-approved components. 
     As a computer readable medium including at least computer program code for review of digital media assets submitted to a media distribution system, one embodiment can, for example, include at least: computer program code for receiving a media package pertaining to a media title and including a plurality of media assets for the media title; computer program code for creating a component container for the media title; computer program code for encoding the plurality of media assets for the media title; computer program code for placing the encoded media assets into the component container; computer program code for forwarding the component container to a review queue for subsequent review; computer program code for retrieving, subsequent to the forwarding, from the review queue a component container to be reviewed; and computer program code for enabling review of individual components within the component container, wherein a reviewer is able to individually approve or reject the individual components within the component container. 
     As a computer readable medium including at least computer program code for reviewing digital media assets for a media title to be made available from a media distribution system, one embodiment can, for example, include at least: computer program code for receiving a component container for a media title; computer program code for presenting at least a plurality of non-approved components of the component container; computer program code for enabling review of individual components within the component container, the individual components being able to be individually reviewed including at least the plurality of non-approved components; and computer program code for enabling individual approval of one or more of the plurality of non-approved components. 
     As a computer readable medium including at least computer program code for reviewing digital media assets for a media title to be made available from a media distribution system, one embodiment can, for example, include at least: computer program code for selecting a component set for review based on a priority associated with the component set, the component set being associated with the media title; computer program code for assigning the component set to a reviewer; computer program code for presenting metadata of the media title associated with the component set; computer program code for receiving an indication of approval or rejection or modification of the metadata of the media title by a reviewer; computer program code for presenting, for the reviewer, at least a plurality of non-approved components of the component set; and computer program code for receiving an indication of approval or rejection of individual components within the component set by the reviewer, the individual components being able to be individually reviewed including at least the plurality of non-approved components. 
     Other aspects and advantages of the invention will become apparent from the following detailed description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings which illustrate, by way of example, the principles of the invention. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       The invention will be readily understood by the following detailed description in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein like reference numerals designate like structural elements, and in which: 
         FIG. 1  illustrates a block diagram of a digital asset submission and distribution system according to one embodiment. 
         FIG. 2  illustrates a process flow diagram of a media submission and review process according to one embodiment. 
         FIGS. 3A and 3B  illustrate flow diagrams of a media package submission process according to one embodiment. 
         FIG. 4  illustrates a flow diagram of a media review process according to one embodiment. 
         FIGS. 5A and 5B  illustrate a media review process according to one embodiment. 
         FIG. 6  shows an exemplary computer system suitable for use with embodiments. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS OF THE INVENTION 
     Various methods and systems for managing assessment of media content electronically submitted to a network-based media distribution system are described. A submitter can prepare a media package that is associated with a particular media asset (e.g., media title), and then electronically submit the media package to the network-based media distribution system. The network-based media distribution system can then process the media package to produce various components that are used by the network-based media distribution system to electronically distribute media content of the media asset to one or more geographic markets. 
     According to one aspect of one or more embodiments, prior to permitting distribution of the various components, the network-based media distribution system can manage a review process on the various components. In this regard, according to one embodiment, the network-based distribution system can facilitate enabling a reviewer to review individual components so that the components can be individually approved or rejected. Advantageously, a submitter (e.g., content provider) for media content can be advised to resubmit media content for those components that have been rejected. 
     Advantageously, a submitter (e.g., content provider) for media content can be advised to resubmit media content for those components that have been rejected. Consequently, once the submitter resubmits media content associated with the previously rejected components, the resubmitted media content can be similarly processed. However, to the extent that certain other components for the particular media asset have already been approved, those components need not be re-approved and thus need not be again reviewed. 
     According to another aspect of one or more embodiments, a reviewer&#39;s workspace can assist a reviewer in reviewing the media content (namely, components for the particular media asset). The reviewer&#39;s workspace can provide a graphical user interface that can assist a user in reviewing the submitted media content. For example, in reviewing the components for the particular media asset, a graphical user interface can be provided to assist the reviewer in reviewing the media content (namely, components for the particular media asset). Additionally, those components of the particular media asset that still need to be reviewed can be presented to the user by the graphical user interface, and can also be downloaded to the reviewer&#39;s workspace (e.g., computer) to facilitate local review by the reviewer. 
     According to still another aspect of one or more embodiments, embodiments of the network-based media distribution system can utilize a plurality of reviewers to review various media assets that have been submitted to a network-based media distribution system for distribution. Hence, each of the reviewers can have an associated workspace, and the delegation of a particular media package to a particular reviewer can be performed based on priority with respect to the media assets that have been submitted and are waiting for review. As noted above, once a particular media package has been assigned to the workspace for a particular reviewer, the particular reviewer is able to examine (e.g., play) one or more components thereof. In doing so, the reviewer is able to approve or reject individual ones of the components. 
     The various aspects, features, embodiments or implementations of the invention described above can be used alone or in various combinations. 
     Embodiments of various aspects of the invention are discussed below with reference to  FIGS. 1-6 . However, those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that the detailed description given herein with respect to these figures is for explanatory purposes as the invention extends beyond these limited embodiments. 
       FIG. 1  illustrates a block diagram of a digital asset submission and distribution system  100  according to one embodiment. The digital asset submission and distribution system  100  includes a digital asset distribution site  102 . The digital asset distribution site  102  provides an online access point for distribution of various digital assets. For example, the digital asset distribution site  102  can be referred to as an online store. A digital asset submission and management system  104  operates to receive submissions of digital assets from various digital asset submitters. The digital asset submission and management system  104  can process submission of digital assets and authorize distribution of approved digital assets. The digital assets can be stored in a digital asset storage device  106 . In one embodiment, the digital asset storage device  106  includes a mass data store and one or more databases. The digital asset storage device  106  provides mass storage of the numerous digital assets that are available for distribution (e.g., purchase or rental). For example, digital assets that have been purchased can be accessed from the digital asset storage device  106  over a data network  108  by way of the digital asset distribution site  102 . Examples of digital assets include digital media assets (e.g., media items) or computer program products. Digital media assets can pertain to music (e.g., songs or albums) or video (e.g., movies or television shows). Computer program products can pertain to applications (or application programs), animations, or presentations. 
     The digital asset submission and distribution system  100  also includes a first client  110 , a second client  112  and a third client  114 . Typically, the digital asset submission and distribution system  100  would include a plurality of different clients, such as the clients  110 ,  112 ,  114 . The first client  110  can include a network access program  116 . The second client  112  can include a digital asset submission program  118 . The third client  114  can include a review program  120 . Some clients can also include both the network access program  116  and the digital asset submission program  118 . The network access program  116  is an application program (e.g., software application) that operates on the first client  110 , which is a computing device. One example of a suitable network access program is a network browser (e.g., Microsoft Explorer™ or Safari™). Another example of a suitable network access program is iTunes™ offered by Apple Inc. The first client  110  is coupled to the digital asset distribution site  102  through the data network  108 . Hence, the first client  110  can interact with the digital asset distribution site  102  to review, purchase and/or manage digital assets. 
     The digital asset submission program  118  is also an application program (e.g., software application) that operates on the second client  112 , which is a computing device. The digital asset submission program  118  is used to submit digital assets to the digital asset submission and management system  104  for eventual distribution by the media distribution site  102 . Although the network access program  116  and the digital asset submission program  118  are shown in  FIG. 1  as separate programs, it should be understood that such programs can be integrated into a single program or reside on the same client machine. 
     The review program  120  is also an application program (e.g., software application) that operates on the third client  114 , which is a computing device. The review program  120  is used to facilitate review of the submitted digital assets by a reviewer to approve or reject the submitted digital assets. The submitted digital assets must satisfy quality requirements before such digital assets are permitted by the digital asset submission and management system  104  to be distributed by the media distribution site  102 . 
     In the digital asset submission and distribution system  100  shown in  FIG. 1 , the digital assets are submitted to the digital asset submission and management system  104  by way of the digital asset submission program  118 . The digital assets that have been submitted (e.g., via the second client  112 ) are processed and then stored in the digital asset storage device  106 . The stored digital assets then undergo some processing, such as an encoding, so that the format of the stored digital assets is uniform and suitable for distribution. Additionally, the stored digital assets, before and/or after such processing, can be reviewed (e.g., for quality) by at least one reviewer. The review program  120  can be used by a reviewer to review and either approve or reject the stored digital assets. For rejected digital assets, the submitter can be notified and given the opportunity to correct the problem(s) and re-submit the corrected digital assets. The digital asset submission and management system  104  can also manage the review of digital assets associated with various digital assets submissions by a plurality of different reviewers. 
     Thereafter, the stored digital assets can be made available for purchase from the digital asset distribution site  102 . Upon purchasing a particular digital asset, the digital asset distribution site  102  permits the digital data for the particular digital asset to be retrieved from the digital asset storage device  106  and then delivered (e.g., downloaded) from the digital asset distribution site  102  to the requesting client  110  through the data network  108 . In this regard, the digital asset distribution site  102  or some other delivery server (not shown) obtains the digital data corresponding to the particular digital asset from the digital asset storage device  106  and downloads such digital data through the data network  108  to the client  110 . The downloaded digital data can then be stored on the client  110 . In one embodiment, the downloaded digital data is encrypted as received at the client  110  but is decrypted and then perhaps re-encrypted before persistently stored on the client  110 . Thereafter, the client  110  can utilize (e.g., execute) the digital data of the digital asset at the client  110 . 
     The digital asset submission and distribution system  100  allows a user of the client  110  to utilize the network access program  116  to browse, search or sort through a plurality of digital assets that can be purchased from the digital asset distribution site  102 . The network access program  116  may also allow the user to preview or demo some or all of a digital asset. In the event that the user of the network access program  116  desires to purchase a particular digital asset, the user (via the network access program  116 ) and the digital asset distribution site  102  can engage in an online commerce transaction in which the user pays for access rights to the particular digital asset. 
     The submission and purchase of the digital assets can be achieved over the data network  108 . In other words, the submission and purchase of the digital assets can be achieved online. The purchase of media items online can also be referred to as electronic commerce (e-commerce). In one embodiment, the data network  108  includes at least a portion of the Internet. The clients  110 ,  112 ,  114  can vary with application but generally are computing devices that have memory storage. Often, the clients  110 ,  112 ,  114  are personal computers or other computing devices that are capable of storing and presenting media to their users. In one embodiment, the connections through the data network  108  between the digital asset distribution site  102  and the clients  110 ,  112 ,  114  can be through secure connections, such as Secure Sockets Layer (SSL). 
     Although the digital asset distribution site  102 , the digital asset submission and management system  104  and the digital asset storage device  106  are shown in  FIG. 1  as being separate components, it should be understood that any of these components can be combined into one or more apparatus. For example, the digital asset submission and management system  104  can be incorporated into the digital asset distribution site  102 . As another example, the digital asset storage device  106  can be incorporated into the digital asset distribution site  102  or the digital asset submission and management system  104 . 
     The client (or client device) can, for example, be a computing device. Examples of a computing device include a personal computer (e.g., desktop computer, notebook computer or netbook computer), or a portable handheld electronic device (e.g., Portable Digital Assistant (PDA), multi-function mobile telephone). 
       FIG. 2  illustrate a process flow diagram of a media submission and review process  200  according to one embodiment. The media submission and review process  200  can include a media submission state, a media encoding state and a review state. These three states are illustrated in the media submission and review process  200 . 
     The media submission and review process  200  can begin in a media submission state  202 . The media submission state  202  represents a processing state in which media submissions are received. Typically, a media submission is provided by a submitter (e.g., content provider) as a digital media package including a plurality of electronic files that make up at least one digital media asset (such as a media title). For example, in the case of a digital video asset, the electronic files can include a video file, an audio file and a metadata file. Often there are multiple video files and audio files to support multiple resolutions, qualities or sizes as well as multiple languages. 
     The media submission state  202  can perform some validation checking with respect to the digital media package to ensure that it is properly formed and valid. Assuming that the digital media package has been successfully validated, the electronic files within the digital media package can be processed at a media encoding state  204 . Here, at the media encoding state  204 , the electronic files within the digital media package can be individually encoded into one or more encoding formats. For example, the network-based media distribution system can support a set of encoding formats, which can differ in resolution, security, quality and size, and the electronic files within the digital package can be encoded to one or more of the encoding formats. Once the electronic files within the digital package has been successfully encoded as desired, the encoded electronic files (also referred to as components) can be directed to a review state. 
     The review state is a state of the media submission and review process  200  where the encoded electronic files (components) are reviewed for quality control. As a result of the review, the encoded electronic files can be individually approved or rejected. The review state, as shown in  FIG. 2 , can include a review queue  206 , a reviewer workspace  208 , a review  210 , and a problem report and associated notification  212 . Following the media encoding by the media encoding state  204 , the encoded electronic files (components) can be stored in the review queue  206 . Typically, the encoded electronic files for a given digital media assets would be grouped together so that they can be reviewed at the same time by a reviewer. 
     From the review queue  206 , any of a plurality of reviewers are able to gain access to the encoded electronic files for review. In this regard, the media submission and review process  200  can provide or utilize a computerized workspace for each of the reviewers. As illustrated in  FIG. 2 , there are reviewers A, B and C, which respectively utilize reviewer A workspace  208 - a , reviewer B workspace  208 - b , and reviewer C workspace  208 - c . When a digital media asset, namely, the encoded electronic files thereof, are provided to a reviewer workspace  208 , the associated reviewer can then review  210  the digital media asset. For example, reviewer A would perform review  210 - a , reviewer B would perform review  210 - b , and reviewer C would perform review  210 - c . If the review of the encoded electronic files being performed by the corresponding reviewer indicates approval thereof, the review process, can then end. On the other hand, if the review of the one or more encoded files being performed by the corresponding reviewer indicates rejection thereof, the review process can continue to provide a problem report and associated notification  212 . For example, reviewer A would perform problem report notification  212 - a , reviewer B would perform problem report notification  212 - b , and reviewer C would perform problem report notification  212 - c . Following the providing of the problem report notification  212 , the media submission and review process  200  can end. 
     If the media package being submitted was fully approved, then the media associated with the media package can be configured for distribution. Alternatively, if the media package being submitted was not approved, the submitter (content provider) receives a notification that identifies the problem by way of the problem report. The submitter can then take action to correct the problem that has been identified with the digital media asset, and then resubmit at least the corrected portions thereof. The corrected media upon resubmission can then undergo similar processing by the media submission and review process  200 . If should be noted that, in some embodiments, if a substantial portion of the electronic encoded files (components) of a digital media asset are approved, but some other less important one of the electronic encoded files are rejected, it is possible to also permit the digital media asset to be configured for distribution, at least to the extent that only the approved electronic encoded files are needed for distribution in a particular geographic area. 
       FIGS. 3A and 3B  illustrate flow diagrams of a media package submission process  300  according to one embodiment. The media package submission process  300  can, for example, be performed by a computing device, such as the digital asset submission and management system  104  illustrated in  FIG. 1 . 
     The package submission process  300  can begin with a decision  302  that determines whether a media package has been received. The media package is associated with a media title and includes a plurality of media assets as electronic files. A content provider can prepare a media package and submit the media package to the computing device, such as the digital asset submission and management system  104 . For example, the content provider can utilize the digital asset submission program  118  illustrated in  FIG. 1  to prepare and submit the media package. The decision  302  can determine whether a media package has been received at the computing device (e.g., the digital asset submission and management system  104 ). When the decision  302  determines that a media package has not been received, the media package submission process  300  can await receipt of a media package. On the other hand, when the decision  302  determines that a media package has been received, additional processing can be performed to process the submitted media package. 
     After the media package has been received, a decision  304  can determine whether the media package received pertains to a re-delivery of a previously submitted media package. For example, upon submission of a media package, digital assets of the media package undergo encoding and a review process to determine whether the contents of the media package are acceptable for distribution. If the media package is determined to be at least partially unacceptable, the content provider can be informed and requested to resubmit another media package in which certain items are altered or corrected. 
     In any event, when the decision  304  determines that the received media package is not a re-delivery of a previously submitted media package, a component container for the media title associated with the received media package can be created  306 . Next, one or more media assets within the received media package can be encoded  308 . Each of the media assets may be encoded by one or more different encodings to provide one or more different formats. Exemplary formats include AAC, HD video, SD video, AppleTV, WAV, WMA, MPEG-4 and many more. After the one or more media assets have been encoded  308 , the encoded media assets can be placed  310  in the component container that was created for the media title. Typically, at this point, the encoded media assets are identified as having a “review pending” status because such media assets that are not yet been reviewed. 
     Thereafter, a decision  312  can determine whether the container is substantially complete. Here, if the media assets within the component container are for the most part successfully encoded, the component container can be deemed substantially complete. In one implementation, a component container can be deeded substantially complete if at least primary components within the component container have been successfully encoded. In the case of a video title as the media title, the primary components can include a Standard Definition (SD) video file and a primary language stereo audio (e.g., English stereo). 
     When the decision  312  determines that the component container is not substantially complete, the submitter of the media package can be notified  314  of the status of the media package. For example, in this case, typically one or more media assets within the media package was not able to be successfully encoded and thus the submitter can be so notified so that the underlying media asset can be corrected and subsequently re-delivered. In this case, the component container is considered not sufficiently complete the problems with the one or more media assets have been corrected and re-submitted and, as a result, not further processed and/or evaluated until deemed at least substantially complete. On the other hand, when the decision  312  determines that the component container is substantially complete, the component container can be forwarded  316  to a review queue. The review queue can operate to store a plurality of component containers (more generally, media assets) that are ready to be reviewed by one or more reviewers. When storing the component containers to the review queue, a priority associated with the component container can be utilized, such that the component containers stored to the review queue are able to be prioritized (e.g., for subsequent review processing) in view of the priority associated with the corresponding component containers. Following the blocks  314  and  316 , the media package submission process  300  can end. 
     On the other hand, when the decision  304  determines that the received media package is a re-delivery of a previously submitted media package, the media package submission process  300  can process the re-delivery in a more efficient manner such that previously reviewed components associated with the media package need not be re-reviewed. In any event, when the decision  304  determines that the received media package corresponds to a re-delivery of a previously submitted media package, the existing component container for the media title is selected  318 . Here, since the component container for the media title already was formed, the component container can be located and reused. In an alternative embodiment, a new component container for the media title can be created. The new component container could be associated with the component container previously utilized. 
     After the existing component container has been selected (or created)  318 , any media assets from the re-delivered media package that are already present and approved in the existing component container can be removed  320  from the component container used for the re-delivered media package. Here, the media assets being re-delivered are the same the corresponding media assets previously submitted and approved. Consequently, those media assets that are re-delivered but are the same as already approved media assets can be removed so that they are not again reviewed and approved. Media assets can be electronically compared to determine they are the same. In one implementation, a binary level comparison can be performed two determine whether two media assets are the same. 
     Following any removal  320 , any remaining media assets within the component container can be encoded  322 . The encoded media assets can then be placed  324  in the component container. Next, a decision  326  can determine whether the component container is substantially complete. When the decision  326  determines that the component container is not substantially complete, the submitter of the re-delivered media package can be notified  328  of the status following encoding. Typically, the status following encoding would indicate that one or more of the media assets within the re-delivered media package have not been successfully encoded. Alternatively, when the decision  326  determines that the component container is substantially complete, the component container can be forwarded  330  to the review queue. Following the blocks  328  and  330 , the media package submission process  300  can end. 
       FIG. 4  illustrates a flow diagram of a media review process  400  according to one embodiment. The media review process  400  can, for example, be performed by a computing device, such as the client machine  114  illustrated in  FIG. 1 . 
     The media review process  400  can include a decision  402  that determines whether a component container should be reviewed. In one embodiment, those component container awaiting review can be stored in a review queue. When the decision  402  determines that is either not desired or not needed, the media review process  400  can await until there is a determined need or desire to provide review. When the decision  402  determines that a component container should be reviewed, a component container is selected  404  for review. Typically, the component container can be selected  404  from a plurality of component containers stored in the review queue. The selection of the particular component container can be based on priorities of the plurality of component containers stored in the review queue. For example, the component container having the highest priority can be the particular component container selected. If the stored component containers have the same priority, the component container being stored in the review queue the longest can be selected. 
     After the component container for review has been selected  404 , at least a portion of the components can be presented  406  for review. Typically, at least a portion of the components can be presented  406  by displaying indicia associated with the portion of the components on a display associated with the computing device performing the media review process  400 . In addition, review of the individual components within the component container can be enabled  408 . 
     A decision  410  can then determine whether review of the component container is complete. When the decision  410  determines that the review is not complete, the media review process  400  can return to repeat the block  408  so that additional components within the component container can be individually reviewed (and thus individually approved or rejected). Alternatively, when the decision  410  determines that the review of the component container is complete, the submitter of the media package associated with the component container can be notified  412  of the status of the components thereof. Following the block  412 , the media review process  400  can end. 
       FIGS. 5A and 5B  illustrate a media review process  500  according to one embodiment. The media review process  500  can be performed by a computing device, such as the client machine  114  illustrated in  FIG. 1 . 
     The media review process  500  can begin with a decision  502  that determines whether a review process should be initiated. When the decision  502  determines that a review process should not be initiated, the media review process  500  waits until a review process is to be initiated. Once the decision  502  determines that a review process should be initiated, a component set can be selected  504  for review based on priority. For example, a review queue can store a plurality of different component sets that are awaiting review. Each of the different component sets can have a priority associated there with. Hence, the selection  504  of a component set to be reviewed can be done such that the component set in the review queue having the highest priority can be selected. 
     After the component set for review has been selected  504 , the selected component set can be assigned  506  to a reviewer. The reviewer is a person that is designated to view and/or listen to components within the selected component set. These components within the selected component set are associated with a particular media title. 
     After the selected components that have been assigned  504  to the reviewer, a decision  508  can determine whether metadata for the media title is approved. Here, the metadata for the media title can be displayed on the computing device, and the reviewer is able to review the metadata. The reviewer may also be permitted to edit the metadata, i.e., so as to make corrections that may be needed. The decision  508  can determine whether the metadata has been approved by the reviewer. When the decision  508  determines that the metadata has been approved, the reviewer is able to subsequently review the media components within the selected component set. 
     When the decision  508  determines that the metadata for the media title is not already approved, the metadata for review can be presented  510 . For example, the metadata for the media title can be presented  510  on a display device associated with the computing device being utilized by the reviewer. The reviewer can then review the metadata being presented  510 . The reviewer can thus determine whether to approve or reject the metadata. If the metadata is rejected, a problem with the metadata can be indicated. The reviewer can also be permitted to edit the metadata. 
     A decision  512  can then determine whether the reviewer has approved the metadata. When the decision  512  determines that the reviewer has not approved the metadata, the metadata problem report can be created  514 . The metadata problem report is eventually provided to the submitter (or content provider) for the media title being reviewed. Alternatively, when the decision  512  determines that the metadata has been approved, as well as following the block  514 , the media review process  500  can proceed to facilitate review of the media components provided within the selected component set. 
     Additionally, as an optional enhancement, the media review process  500  can also download  516  components that are pending approval or are primary components. By downloading  516  the components that are pending approval (or are primary components) to the computing device being utilized by the reviewer, the components (e.g., digital media assets) to be reviewed are thus stored locally and available to be rapidly retrieved. As shown in  FIG. 5A , the downloading  516  of the components that are pending approval (as well as primary components otherwise needed for review) can be performed in parallel with the operations associated with the reviewer reviewing the metadata for the media title. The primary components are typically needed to intelligently present other ones of the components; hence, their download can occur regardless of whether the primary components need to be approved. 
     Next, following blocks  514  and  516  as well as following the decision  508  (when metadata has been previously approved) or following the decision  512  (when metadata is approved), those components within the selected component set that are pending approval can be presented  518 . Again, the components can be presented  518  with the assistance of a computing device being utilized by the reviewer. For example, the components that are pending approval can be listed on a display device associated with the computing device. Next, one of the components to be reviewed can be selected  520 . Once one of the components to be reviewed is selected  520 , the selected component can be reviewed by the reviewer. A decision  522  can determine whether the selected component has problem. When the decision  520  determines that the reviewer concludes that the selected component has a problem, a problem report can be created  524  to identify the problem that has been identified by the reviewer with respect to the selected component. 
     After the problem report for the selected component has been created  524 , a decision  526  can determine whether the selected component can be approved even with the problem. For example, when the problem is sufficiently minor in character, it may still be appropriate to approve the selected component. Alternatively, when the decision  526  determines that given the problem with the selected component, the selected component is not being approved, then the selected component can be rejected  528 . In addition, the content provider of the media title associated with the selected component can be notified  530  of the rejection. 
     Thereafter, a decision  532  can determine whether the review of the selected component set should end. When the decision  532  determines that the review of the selected component said should not end, the media review process  500  can return to repeat the block  520  and subsequent blocks so that another component of the selected components that can be selected and similarly processed. Alternatively, when the decision  532  determines that the review of the selected component should end, the review of the selected component set closes  534 . Any notifications that have been accumulated but not sent, can also be sent, even in a consolidated manner, to the content provider of the media title associated with the selected component set. After the review of the selected components that has been closed  534 , the media review process  500  can end. 
       FIG. 6  shows an exemplary computer system. One or more of the exemplary computer systems are suitable for use with at least one embodiment of the invention. The computer system  600  includes a display monitor  602  having a single or multi-screen display  604  (or multiple displays), a cabinet  606 , a keyboard  608 , and a mouse  610 . The cabinet  606  houses a drive  612 , such as for receiving a CD-ROM  614 , a system memory and a mass storage device (e.g., hard drive or solid-state drive) (not shown) which may be utilized to store retrievable software programs incorporating computer code that implements the embodiment of the invention, data for use with embodiment(s) of the invention, and the like. Although the CD-ROM  614  is shown as an exemplary computer readable medium, other computer readable digital video including floppy disk, tape, flash memory, system memory, and hard drive may be utilized. 
     The various aspects, features, embodiments or implementations of the invention described above can be used alone or in various combinations. 
     Embodiments of the invention can be implemented by software, hardware, or a combination of hardware and software. Embodiments of the invention can also be embodied as computer readable code on a computer readable medium. The computer readable medium is any data storage device that can store data which can thereafter be read by a computer system. Examples of the computer readable medium generally include read-only memory and random-access memory. More specific examples of computer readable medium are tangible and include Flash memory, EEPROM memory, memory card, CD-ROM, DVD, hard drive, magnetic tape, and optical data storage device. The computer readable medium can also be distributed over network-coupled computer systems so that the computer readable code is stored and executed in a distributed fashion. 
     The advantages of the invention are numerous. Different embodiments or implementations may, but need not, yield one or more of the following advantages. One advantage of at least some embodiment is that individual components that are associated with a digital media asset (e.g., media title) can be individually reviewed, which provides increased efficiency for assessment of media quality. Another advantage of at least some embodiment is that a reviewer&#39;s workspace can focus and assist with reviewing those components associated with a digital media asset that are not yet approved. Still another advantage of at least some embodiment is that a plurality of reviewers can review various media assets that have been submitted to a network-based media distribution system for distribution in a prioritized manner. 
     The many features and advantages of the invention are apparent from the written description. Further, since numerous modifications and changes will readily occur to those skilled in the art, the invention should not be limited to the exact construction and operation as illustrated and described. Hence, all suitable modifications and equivalents may be resorted to as falling within the scope of the invention.

Metadata:
Filing Date: 20150320
Publication Date: 20191126
Grant Date: 20191126
Priority Date: 20121130
Inventors: YEN, ANDREW C.
ERLEWINE, DANIEL D.
MALAER, DITA R.
FINKE, ERIC C.
SUITTS, JASON R.
KAMATH, JAYA
Muller, III, Max M.
Assignee: APPLE INC
CPC Classifications: [{"code": "G06Q30/0631", "inventive": true, "first": false, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "G06Q50/184", "inventive": true, "first": false, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "H04L67/02", "inventive": true, "first": false, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "G06Q50/184", "inventive": true, "first": false, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "G06Q10/06395", "inventive": true, "first": true, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "G06Q50/01", "inventive": true, "first": false, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "G06Q50/00", "inventive": true, "first": false, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "G06Q50/00", "inventive": true, "first": false, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "G06Q10/06395", "inventive": true, "first": true, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "H04L67/02", "inventive": true, "first": false, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "G06Q30/0631", "inventive": true, "first": false, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "G06Q50/01", "inventive": true, "first": false, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "G06Q50/00", "inventive": true, "first": false, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "G06Q50/184", "inventive": true, "first": false, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "G06Q10/06395", "inventive": true, "first": true, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "G06Q30/0631", "inventive": true, "first": false, "tree": "[]"}, {"code": "G06Q50/01", "inventive": true, "first": false, "tree": "[]"}]
Family ID: 50826518