DAM has been "pwned" by Photoshop

Why has Digital Asset Management not evolved at the same pace as Photoshop?

Do you ever think about the fact that digital asset management has been around almost as long as Photoshop? Yet while Photoshop enjoys ”verb” status across the lips of much of the world’s population, DAM continues to flounder as a technology and practice that we must explain over and over.

In my latest on CMSWire, I offer 5 reasons why I think DAM has fallen so far behind in terms of popularity and adoption. I hope you enjoy it. If you have anything to add, please do so here in the comments. My guess is that the readers of this blog could each come up with at least 5 reasons of their own!

Read “5 Reasons Why There is No “Photoshop of DAM

Note: CMSWire editors renamed the article on their website, which is why the title differs there.

Be a DAM Superhero!

Posted: May 15, 2013 in Best Practices
Be a DAM Superhero!

Andrew Mannone (America’s Test Kitchen) and Carol Thomas-Knipes (LogicSource) discuss what it takes to manage a DAM solo.

Ideally, when you deploy your DAM initiative, you have a team of people helping you: tech folks, information pros, editors, etc. But for some DAM managers, “Google” is the only team they get. For these people, I have two new resources.

First off, DAM News has published an article I wrote about being a DAM Superhero. If you’ve already read DAM Survival Guide, you’ll be familiar with what I recommend here.

Then, to get the opinions of two DAM Giants, please join me for “Be a DAM Superhero!” the webinar on 05 June. Joining me will be Andrew Mannone of America’s Test Kitchen, and Carol Thomas-Knipes of LogicSource. These two people offer perhaps the best the best balance of experience, understanding and (fun!) personality that you will find in this industry. Signup is free.

I hope you find both resources valuable.

The Copyright Killings webinar

International courts are making decisions with regard to copyright. We could be doing more to avoid this.

The United Kingdom recently passed legislation that makes it permissible to use for commercial purposes works whose owners cannot be found. These so-called “orphan works” include photographs taken decades ago, the owners of which could be long dead; but they also include more recent works for which ownership can simply not be discovered by the intended user. 

The UK law makes provisions for setting aside funds in case the owner is determined at a later point in time, but who’s to say how much that owner would have wanted for her family photo to become the centerpiece of an international ad campaign? (Let alone, whether she would have permitted it at all.)

The justification for “orphan works” legislation is that museums and other historical cultural institutions avoid showcasing wonderful works simple because they cannot get approvals, and they want to avoid the risk of later being sued, which makes sense. The net result is that these works remain unpublished, offering no benefit to anyone. 

Feeding into this concern is that most social media sites strip embedded metadata from uploaded images. This means that even when someone does take the time to properly identify themselves in an uploaded work, that same work could be downloaded (without that metadata), uploaded by another user and, before you know it, become “orphaned.”

But don’t take my word for it. ;) Instead, set aside an hour to listen to “The Copyright Killings,” which is a webinar I hosted that included three guests who are experts on this topic:

  • Michael Steidl, Managing Director of the IPTC
  • Jeff Sedlik, President and CEO of PLUS Coalition
  • David Riecks, metadata advocate and owner of ControlledVocabulary.com and PhotoMetadata.org

The issue of copyright is huge, and I’m not suggesting any solution here. The rights of people who make livings from their creative works must be protected. But the value of those creative works is nullified if they cannot be enjoyed within parameters determined by their owners. This topic has exploded since the passage of this UK legislation, and similar legislation has been and will be considered elsewhere in the future. 

As with many situations, the Courts have come in to settle an issue the citizens could not settle for themselves. And, as is often the case, the Court might not have come up with the ideal solution. I encourage further discussion and debate on this topic because I think it’s up to us, the Creative and Business communities, to really figure this out. I don’t believe our world does enough to encourage creativity as a profession, and the last thing I want to see happen is commercial exploits that further discourage kids from thinking they can ever make decent livings as artists. 

On a side note, I want to send thanks to Picturepark for sponsoring this webinar. Though this topic has nothing to do with selling digital asset management software, the company agreed the topic was important. A lot of money and time was put into creating and advertising this webinar, and I know this is something that not a lot of other companies (particularly other DAM vendors) would have done. If you want to let Picturepark know what you think, please email info@picturepark.com.

What Happens when Google Says No?

Posted: April 9, 2013 in Opinion
What Happens When Google Says No?

We train Google when we post content. Are we giving it a good education?

“The average number of tweets per day on Twitter surpassed 1 billion in 2013.”

Do you think this information about Twitter is worth sharing? It’s a pretty amazing number, and it would probably get a lot of re-shares. The problem, of course, is that it’s entirely false. But if enough people believed it to be true, and shared it across their social networks, in time, poor Google could be tricked into thinking this was fact. When someone searched for “how many tweets are sent each day?” the result could be what you see above.

My latest article for CMSWire speaks to the concern that by not paying careful attention to what we post and share online, we’re polluting the Web with garbage that’s becoming accepted as fact. Please read “What Happens when Google Says No” and let me know what you think.

God Help Me, I’m a DAM Geek!

Posted: April 5, 2013 in Opinion
God Help Me, I'm a DAM Geek

Will kids ever want to be us when they grow up?

A few weeks ago, CMSWire published an article I wrote in which I try to come to terms with the idea that DAM is apparently my thing these days, despite the fact that I still own all my old synthesizers and guitars, just in case this day-job thing doesn’t work out.

What really surprised me about this article was the reaction it got from people in all sectors of our industry. I think there are many of us who need a “DAM Coming Out” day in order to proclaim to the world that this is who we are and we’re not likely to start another band! Well, that might be just my take on it, but still.

You can read the DAM Geek story here.

After you’ve read it, report back here and we’ll schedule the first annual DAM Pride Parade. (It won’t be as popular or fun as a Gay Pride Parade, but I’ll bet it will be better organized.)

Orphaned Works + Social Media = Bad News

Some social media sites are effectively separating you from your creative works.

The IPTC has released its findings from a research project that aimed to discover which social media sites stripped away embedded metadata from uploaded images. Before I get into why this is such an important topic, let me offer a brief primer for those still wondering what I’m talking about.

Metadata values, such as copyright notices, author or artists names, and other such information can be embedded into files so that no matter where the file goes, so goes the metadata. This is important because once an image leaves the hands of its rightful owner, it can be difficult for others to determine who that owner is, for the purposes of licensing, credits, use restrictions, etc. When proper metadata has been embedded into an image (or other work), the owner has made a good faith attempt at claiming copyright and also communicating that copyright. This is in everyone’s best interests because copyright violations serve no one.

The problem comes from a “perfect storm” of having no metadata inside an image and having governments decide through so-called “orphaned works” legislation that if the rightful owner of a work cannot be determined through some reasonable manner (that I’ve yet to see described), the work is effectively up for grabs to whomever would like to use it. In other words, it holds no copyright. This makes sense for works that are, say, 50 or more years old. But there’s no reason today that legitimately copyrighted materials should be subjected to the same treatment.

And whether you agree or not with that premise, imagine the surprise of millions of social media contributors the world over when they find that works they shared via social media (but never meant to give away ownership of) have now effectively entered the public domain because—whoops!—Facebook, Twitter or some other site stripped away the embedded copyright notice. This is the basis for the IPTC’s report. This practice is happening today and if it doesn’t stop, copyright owners are going to stop sharing their works, or risk losing ownership over those works.

What’s next? A call to return to downloading/stealing music and movies because, you know, someone stripped away the embedded metadata and credits so you have absolutely no idea to whom the works belong? Perhaps these legislators have found that it takes too long to gussy up their PowerPoints with pretty images they can use legally. “Hey Senator: Do we have any idea who owns this image?” “Nope, we sure don’t.” “Perfect. That’s all I needed to hear.”

Not being one to buy into too many conspiracy theories, I’m not suggesting that anyone is trying to get away with something here. I think it’s more likely that software engineers don’t lunch with legislators, so neither saw this freight train coming. Nonetheless, here comes the train.

What can you do to help?
I don’t see any coordinated calls to action associated with this report, so I can’t really say what we’re supposed to do. I would say, though, that a good first step is to share across your social networks the content you find related to this topic. After all, we know that social media is, perhaps, the one place legislators and social media developers might actually find one another.

Privacy and Marketing Automation

What are we trying to hide?

It might be time for us to relax a bit when it comes to privacy. We’re on the verge of legislating away everything we hold dear with regard to our personal digital devices. We want protections, yet we want convenience. We want anonymity, yet we have 17,314 Facebook friends we’ve never met. My article this month on CMSWire speaks to the effects of evolving legislation on burgeoning marketing automation.

I’m in the market for a new TV. I want a big one that’s easy to use. I have the money; I’m a qualified buyer. So why the hell do I have to do all the work shopping around to find the perfect set? Why isn’t some program somewhere finding exactly what I need? Of course, to make this happen, I would have to provide personal information about my preferences, viewing choices and budget. Some company would then get that info and—do what?—market to me? Isn’t that happening already? The only problem is that I’m being sold on products I don’t want to buy, while I  would kill for some useful information on TVs.

I hope you enjoy “Marketing Automation vs. You.”