Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation

1,248

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,248
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Digital Image Asset Management Software Recommendation Rotch Visual Collections, MIT Libraries April 27, 2005 Analysis Committee: Sheryl Brittig Melanie Howell Carl Jones Pam Nicholas Samuel Sadow Merrill Smith Johanna Woll
  • 2. Contents Introduction and Background…………………………………………………….3 Statement of Needs…………………………………………………………………….3 Evaluation of Applications ARTstor……………………………………………………………………………4 CONTENTdm…………………………………………………………………..6 DSpace…………………………………………………………………………….8 Narravision……………………………………………………………………10 Recommended Application………………………………………………………12 Funding and Support………………………………………………………………..13 Metadata Issues…………………………………………………………………………14 Intellectual Property Issues…………………………………………………….15 Appendix 1: Standards…………………………………………………………….17 Appendix 2: Digital Workflow for RVC……………………………………18 Appendix 3: Comparison Grid of the Four Applications……….21 2
  • 3. Introduction and Background As changing pedagogical methods demand new instructional media, RVC must extend its services to include managing and delivering digital images for classroom teaching. By providing access to existing visual assets that are used as primary teaching tools by faculty in the School of Architecture and Planning, and by focusing our initial digitization efforts on course-driven content, we will meet our patrons’ teaching need and keep pace with the evolving visual resources environment. This new faculty demand is driven, in part, by technological and industrial changes: consumer demand for digital capabilities has led to a cessation of industry support for 35mm slide technology. Our image vendors are rapidly switching to digital content and are decreasing their slide holdings. All too soon, replacement parts for failing classroom slide projectors will be unobtainable, and faculty will be left with no means with which to use our analog collection materials. We have already witnessed some forward-thinking professors in DUSP and other School of Architecture departments (Larry Vale, Arindam Dutta, Dennis Frenchman, to name a few) scanning hundreds of RVC slides used for teaching. They have now ceased coming into the unit to borrow slides, although they occasionally drop by to inquire if Libraries has yet decided to implement a digital images program or to ask for recommendations for digital image management and classroom presentation software. Other faculty members (Caroline Jones, Erika Naginski, Michael Dennis, Tunney Lee) are vocal proponents of a digital image program. What do we need? To continue serving our users’ teaching needs, we must start digitizing parts of our collection and step up efforts to acquire licensed digital content. RVC needs to store our digital images on a server or servers with good backup and recovery systems in place, to organize the files in a logical manner, and to attach rich descriptive metadata for search and retrieval capability. We need to be able to add to this management system regularly (should be scalable), to edit and update materials in it periodically, to refresh the system as needed, and to pull our content back out easily or to migrate if necessary. We need to authenticate access to the images, restricting use of protected material to the MIT community. We need a well-designed user interface that clearly outlines licensing restrictions, permissible usage, and Fair Use guidelines, and which allows for searching on several fields or even keywords. When results are returned, 3
  • 4. thumbnails (~400 pixels on long side) should be displayed with key descriptive data and links to related records. Users should be able to click to a medium-sized image (~800 pixels on long side) and more detailed descriptive metadata. Users should be able to choose multiple thumbnails for re-display as a found set, and possibly even to manipulate images into a certain order, before being allowed to batch export/download large projection-sized images (~3000 pixels on long side) to desktop or course tools of their choice. RVC needs to generate reports on image usage (“circulation” stats). Because we do hold the copyright to some of our materials, it would be nice to have some type of “shopping cart” functionality to help process the permission to publish requests that both the RVC and Aga Khan subject specialists receive regularly. Reports from visual resources colleagues tell us that many faculty members have high anxiety over the prospect of using digital images, even though they realize it is a necessary evolution. They require, at least initially, much one-on-one training and support, even when the system in use is fairly intuitive. We should strive to implement something that is user-friendly, with online help/tutorials built-in, and to design good instructional handouts and training sessions. Evaluation of some systems that may give us what we need The Analysis committee looked at several systems, and chose ARTstor, CONTENTdm, DSpace, and Narravision for evaluation in the report. ARTstor A nonprofit entity, initiated by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, that provides curated collections of art images and associated data for nonprofit, noncommercial and scholarly, educational use. It is designed on the JSTOR model for journals that provides archiving and stability, and may extend to other (non-art and architecture) disciplines in future. Pros ● Hosted (less involvement of Library Systems staff) ● Offline viewer is free (with membership) and works with JPEG2000 ● Vast collection of images, and growing (500,000 by 2006) ● Hosting of personal/institutional collections to be added in Fall ’05 (costs TBD) ● Can use Offline Viewer to pull images from ARTstor and create slide shows (student review/print images are small and of low resolution. Note “classroom” images are not downloaded locally, but a session with ARTstor is initiated through the Offline Viewer) ● Institute-wide license (not limited number of seats) ● Stable URLs 4
  • 5. ● Can generate reports on usage statistics ● A personal collection tool for faculty is being developed, release date TBD Cons ● Not a true asset management system ● Significant gaps in collection (weaknesses include architecture and architectural plans, maps, didactic/background materials, modern and contemporary works, even some core materials for teaching Survey are missing) ● Inconsistent image quality (e.g. UC San Diego slides in its Image Gallery) ● Duplicates not removed so multiple images of same work exist (faculty really don’t like having to review/evaluate multiple versions, but ask for best choice to be only offering) ● Local content/personal collections must be loaded into proprietary program (Offline Viewer) ● Not interoperable with other repositories (e.g. DSpace) that may contain needed teaching content ● Metadata quality is inconsistent and sometimes bad, no real standards for metadata at this point in time ● Cannot handle complex relationships among images/works (e.g. hierarchical or associative) ● Very small download size (400 pixels on long side) outside of proprietary viewer because of licensing issue ● Content not available via other image viewers; lack of interoperability (images encrypted so viewable only with ARTstor’s Offline Viewer; adds a layer of complexity in working with non-ARTstor digital images) ● Hosted collection version does not allow customization of user interface; subscriber must accept ARTstor designed interface. ● If subscription lapses, immediate loss of expected content for teaching ● Costs: $40k one-time plus $20k per year, plus costs of hosting a collection (if that option is desired—TBD, and costs of “manipulating” images and metadata for hosting TBD based on level of ARTstor time/labor involved in such manipulation) Summary: ARTstor is a content provider that, due to intellectual property issues, restricts use of its images for meaningful learning exchanges to one tool—the offline viewer. This will force faculty to adopt a highly non-interoperable tool for using any RVC/MIT/personal images for teaching when also using ARTstor content. 5
  • 6. While ARTstor may be a likely candidate as a source of teaching content, it is just one of many sources required to answer teaching needs. It seems a less likely choice as an image management system, since it was not originally intended as such, and is only recently adopting some features of a DAM system for hosting collections in hopes of attracting new subscribers, with guidelines, workflow, and pricing still being worked out. The ARTstor-as-image- management system would be the most costly as well as the most restrictive in terms of interoperability and functionality. CONTENTdm, distributed by OCLC through Nelinet CONTENTdm provides tools for everything from organizing and managing to publishing and searching digital collections over the Internet. CONTENTdm handles documents, PDFs, images, video, and audio files and is used by libraries, universities, government agencies, museums, corporations, historical societies, and a host of other organizations to support hundreds of diverse digital collections. Pros ● Vocabulary control by field (CONTENTdm is one of the few products that provides some type of authority control on metadata) ● Certain fields may be suppressed from user view ● OCLC host or local server option ● Supports Latin-1 character set ● Supports VRA Core; uses templates for descriptive, rights, and administrative metadata ● Catalog directly in CONTENTdm or import metadata from tab-delimited application ● Supports XML ● Allows for Compound Objects—multiple files linked by relationship (parent/child and sibling/sibling possible; unknown about associative relationships) ● Records can be linked to local web OPAC ● Fully compliant with OAI-PMH v2.0 ● Global changes possible ● User grouping of images into My Favorites (multiple folders possible, saved indefinitely, shareable with others) ● PowerPoint Plug-in for My Favorites ● Accepts JPEG, GIF, or TIFF images, WAV or MP3 audio, AVI or MPEG video, PDF, and URLs for storage and display ● Supports JPEG2000 for panning and zooming of images ● Can automatically create lower resolution display images 6
  • 7. ● Can scan directly into CONTENTdm from TWAIN devices ● Image Rights Tool allows watermarking, branding, or banners for copyright designation ● Item Level security possible ● Authenticated access to collections by username or IP addresses (certificates); very flexible permissions structure ● Administrator review of images/metadata in pending queue before adding to collection ● HTML-based Search client PC/Mac/Unix platform, IE browser recommended ● Batch loading possible for both images and metadata (or load singly) ● Cross-collection searching ● Can get data back out of system easily ● Open source software that adds Z39.50 compatibility to any CONTENTdm digital collections server is available ● Use of Tiny URLS/persistent URLs ● Includes Report Generator ● Hierarchical searching, can be set by User per session for persistent searching ● Light table feature ● Fully searchable and scalable up to millions of images (max items in single collection limited to 16 million) ● Customizable interface; offers much flexibility in use of style templates. New version (May 2005) will support PHP ● Multi-site server available for collaborations between institutions/organization ● Pricing for locally hosted option: 8,000 objects = $7K plus annual fee of $1300 after first year at low end, and unlimited objects = $40K plus annual maintenance fee of $6800 at upper end ● Pricing for hosted option: 500 objects/200 MB = $1200 annually, 4,000 objects = $4000, 8,000 objects = $6600, 12,000 objects= $9000 (no annual maintenance fee) Cons ● Proprietary software ● Doesn’t support non-Latin characters ● Limited support/training mechanism for end users (Library would have to train/support users) Summary: CONTENTdm offers a great deal of needed functionality at a reasonable cost, and has stable OCLC backing. For a Fall ’05 solution, the hosted version, at 4000 objects, could work. As a 7
  • 8. longer-term solution, we may well quickly scale to needing local hosting for a larger number of objects. The “My Favorites” PowerPoint plug-in would provide a tool for faculty use, should they require it, without additional cost or software, and without additional layers of training in use of ancillary products. DSpace A digital repository created to capture, distribute and preserve the intellectual output of MIT. As a joint project of MIT Libraries and the Hewlett-Packard Company, DSpace provides stable long-term storage needed to house the digital products of MIT faculty and researchers. Pros ● Open Source ● Already in place at MIT ● Easy to upload data (image batch loading capabilities?) ● Persistent URLs ● Accepts multiple media formats ● Ability to organize by collection ● Backup, mirroring, refreshing media, and disaster recovery procedures already in place and part of DSpace maintenance ● Access control at collection and item level ● Thumbnails display in search results as a list, not a matrix across the screen 8
  • 9. ● Metadata can be batch loaded ● Content can be exported in simple XML format ● Already implements MIT security model (certificate-based authentication) Cons ● MIT DSpace policy specifies work must be produced, submitted or sponsored by MIT faculty, and contributors must sign a deposit license—policy would have to be changed to allow inclusion of our licensed and copywork images that are not original MIT content and for which we, as contributor, are not the authors/rights owner and for which we cannot execute legal deposit license ● No side-by-side image comparisons ● No light table feature (faculty “lay out” slides on light tables and make selections for inclusion in lecture as they arrange their slide presentation, so no visual means to compare/contrast possible choices before export from DSpace may significantly influence their decision of whether or not to utilize DSpace as a tool for searching/selecting images for teaching). At the very least, a way to select large numbers of images and then re-display chosen set is essential ● Downloading batched images to desktop for classroom use (50-80 images per lecture) is not available; the process for selecting and exporting batched images is cumbersome ● No native VRA Core support; crosswalks to Dublin Core show multiple deficiency points for key search fields (no equivalent DC element/qualifier) 9
  • 10. ● Restricts search terms to title, author (creator), date—choices would need to be expanded for image searches (culture, style, period, site name, reconstruction or restoration date, built work view, etc.) ● Search/retrieval interface may need some redesign to fit returned images, tombstone metadata, and links to related works on the page so that multiple records display without much scrolling ● The DSpace storage allocation is inadequate for our anticipated needs—our average file size will be 18MB, and we expect to have about 1500 files per course and load two courses per semester. DSpace storage allocation has an annual storage limitation of 300Mb for a small community (less than 50 contributors) and 1,000MB for a large community (over 150 contributors), with total storage after five years of 1.5GB for small community and 5GB for large community. Cost for deposits beyond this allocation is $5 per GB Summary: While DSpace holds promise as a management system for RVC’s digital content, significant changes would have to be made to address several usability concerns. A policy change for MIT DSpace to include non-original content is not a trivial decision. Changes required to DSpace, such as providing for easy batch downloading of images to desktop, redesign of retrieval pages, and incorporation of VRA Core 4 metadata scheme or a much-expanded Dublin Core set, may require longer lead time than we have to implement a DAM system by Fall ’05 or even Spring ‘06. While the display of thumbnail images in the search results list is now possible, and one site (U. Delaware) has incorporated JPEG2000 functionality which is invoked when the user clicks on the thumbnail image, there is little indication that sites are looking to make significant improvements in the way DSpace presents image content. The system remains comparatively awkward when seen in the context of tools like ARTstor or CONTENTdm, which were designed with image content presentation from the ground up. Rather, most sites have plans for either using DSpace as a back-end repository for some other application which does the search and display of images; or are waiting for DSpace 2.x which promises a more modular design and may 10
  • 11. allow "plugins" to provide specific content handling functionality. Under this scenario it might be possible to imagine a light-table module or side-by-side image comparison functionality being incorporated into DSpace much more easily than is possible now. Should content guidelines be changed and functionality added to make search/retrieval, image selection, and batch downloading of images much more streamlined for end users, DSpace could certainly be a logical choice for an image management system back-end. Even if a separate instance of DSpace were created for RVC, not restricted by MIT DSpace content guidelines, the same changes to layout and functionality would be required, again very possibly exceeding our timeframe, budget, and staff resources. Academic Computing "Narravision" (aka m:media) Pilot http://oki1.mit.edu:8080/narravision-web/ Narravision is a recently developed tool to support image delivery and display for classroom teaching. Currently its primary use is to support the "Visualizing Cultures" 21F.027J course being taught by John Dower and Shigeru Miyagawa, a course that makes extensive and rich use of image content. Although Narravision shares the same "core engine" with m:media (the former Metamedia) the end-user interface seems to have fairly basic functionality, being limited to search by title, medium, keyword; and click on thumbnail to enlarge. It does not support things such as content annotations or the creation of virtual collections at this time. A Narravision java "client" is under development that will provide a much richer user experience for creating and editing content and perhaps it is this tool that will provide some of these "missing" features. Each course using Narravision can have its own look and feel. The templates are based on the needs of the current participants, but are not limited to this particular look. In future, AMPS is seen as playing a role in helping professors customize their sites. Pros ● Basic search and retrieval, browse thumbnails by title, medium, keyword; click on thumbnail to enlarge 11
  • 12. ● Java client for creating and editing metadata under development and will be ready for production by October 2005 ● User interface functionality is basic but Academic Computing would like to work with us on reviewing functionality and prioritizing features to add ● Interface HTML is customizable for each course, AMPs may be able to play a large role in helping sites to configure their pages. ● E-commerce module built-in Cons ● Narravision is still only a “pilot” project; future status is unknown. We don’t know that the long-term commitment to providing a production system built around Narravision will last ● IS&T DAM system not yet implemented (need to find more details as to its status and design), timeline unknown ● Uncertain whether DSpace could be used in place of IS&T’s planned DAM system (or if that’s desirable) ● Metadata—the amount of work needed to structure the metadata to the point where it is available for search and retrieval is unknown ● No “My Favorites” equivalent virtual collections ● No side-by-side image comparisons 12
  • 13. ● No JPEG2000 capability for pan and zoom ● User interface is basic but serviceable for the short term if faculty know it’s under development. We would expect more functionality by mid-fall ● Most likely limited to using IS&T’s planned institutional DAM system at this time (status of system unknown, will it seem like a collision with DSpace?) Summary and Questions Jeff Merriman had proposed a pilot project to Jerry Grochow and Vijay Kumar to work with the Libraries to further develop Narravision as a web application for image delivery and Narravision java client for metadata authoring. RVC/Rotch image content would be a continuation and extension of the work they have already committed to do for Professor John Dower’s “Visualizing Cultures”. They have target dates already in place (October for Narravision client) to deliver production level functionality, so Jeff does not feel they are that far off. Jeff envisioned the pilot extending the model to include Rotch/RVC content and provide support for courses in the Art and Architecture Department. A decision to go with Narravision would mean a loss in immediate functionality compared with a tool like CONTENTdm, but the upside is that we would be closely engaged with Academic Computing on a core project to a deliver a tool for faculty/student use. Is there a strategy where we might pursue another delivery application for the libraries (e.g. CONTENTdm) and still work with Academic Computing on Narravision for image delivery? Can Narravision use DSpace or CONTENTdm as a back-end system? Our Recommendation Based on a review of these alternatives, for a near-term (one year) solution, we recommend CONTENTdm. CONTENTdm offers both the functionality and flexibility we need (refer to pros/cons listing); the program can be installed (or images loaded to host server), customized, 13
  • 14. and sufficiently populated by our Fall ’05 target; and it will provide some low learning-curve tools for faculty to use images in the classroom. This latter point is not specifically within our charge to consider, but, with respect, we feel strongly that providing digital images to our primary users without also considering some means for them to use the images in class is not in keeping with the Libraries commitment to provide excellent service in support of teaching. The hosted version will not significantly save STS staff time and involvement over a locally hosted option, but we would not be dealing with server maintenance. At 4,000 objects (read: digital files), the $4000 price tag is reasonable and possibly could be paid from RVC/KHAN collection budgets for a one-year test period for digital image usage. If we were to host locally, our cost would be $7,000 for 8,000 objects and we would need server space and maintenance. The license fee could still be paid for with RVC/KHAN collection monies. We would recommend the JPEG2000 Extension, costs for which are also based on number of objects, with the 8,000 object collection price set at $1500 with a $60 annual maintenance fee. Toward the end of the academic year (Spring ’06), we will provide an evaluation of the project’s success, functional strengths and weaknesses, and user comments and suggestions. At that time, Libraries can reassess whether we should continue with CONTENTdm, or move to a different solution. 14
  • 15. For the longer term, we suggest that DSpace may be the most logical choice for a back-end system. This would require changes to content policies, and changes to allow for use of VRA Core for more robust metadata entry/searching, for batch loading of images, and batch downloading of images to desktop (or export to course management tools or classroom presentation tools). These changes will take time, and could be made over the course of the year during which we utilize CONTENTdm. Bearing in mind that faculty would become accustomed to the search and retrieval functionality offered by CONTENTdm, and ARTStor, should this be licensed at MIT, and therefore would most likely expect similar features in any system implemented afterwards, it would also be helpful to create in DSpace a separate search interface for images, which would allow for Copyright/Usage restriction statements, and also allow for a light box tool for faculty to “lay out” images for easier evaluation and selection before export out of DSpace into various course tools. It is possible that a separate instance of DSpace (RVCSpace?) could be created as a management system for our images, which would eliminate the need for policy changes to MIT DSpace, and which could be configured with the necessary user interface for search and retrieval and for VRA Core data entry. We further recommend that, if DSpace is to be used as the management system, the MIT Libraries should engage in specific discussions with Academic Computing about how some of their ideas for presentation tools (i.e. Narravision, M:Media, Princeton University’s open source Almagest) could interoperate with DSpace; such a partnership would serve our users well in providing robust tools for both image storage/retrieval and classroom presentation, and serve to advance pedagogy in numerous disciplines. Funding and Support Either version of CONTENTdm, hosted or local server, is under $10,000. The cost could be split between RVC and KHAN collection budgets for the first year’s test of the project. Various “tweakings” and customizations to the interface could be done by the Rotch Local Technology Expert, or may require the expertise of STS staff. Should the decision be made to continue with CONTENTdm beyond the first year, it would be preferable to use the non-hosted version. In this case, we would request central funding from Libraries or MIT to pay the initial subscription fee (see fees in pros/cons listing). Beginning 15
  • 16. with the second year, the only CONTENTdm cost would be the annual maintenance fee ($1300- $6800 depending on number of objects in collection), which could be paid from central funds. The installation, setup of users and passwords, server maintenance, and trouble-shooting would require expertise of STS staff, unless the Rotch LTE were trained to support this application. If DSpace is to be used as the management system for the longer term, funding will be needed for the various programming changes required. Monies residing in the RVC Newman account could be contributed to these expenses; the system houses and provides access to the digital collection and the electronic infrastructure is integrated with the collection, so it would be logical to use collection funding for this purpose. We would need the expertise of STS programmers or to hire an outside programmer for this project. Costs for storage for a locally-hosted management system (either CONTENTdm, DSpace, or some other system) could also come from MIT/IS&T or Libraries central funding. IS&T server storage and maintenance costs, according to their fee schedule, would run between $37,000 and $56,000 annually. If this is considered an “Enterprise-wide” project, we could be eligible for hardware funding out of the Administrative Server Pool funds. RVC staff could manage some aspects of data maintenance, uploading and editing of content, for example, while either the Rotch LTE or STS staff may need to manage other aspects of the system, such as security. With respect to funding digitization of content, both RVC and KHAN collection budgets will be used to purchase digitized content from image vendors, as well as to cover costs of outsourcing digitization of slides ($1.10 per slide with Boston Photo). We anticipate being able to digitize one “Khan” and one “RVC” course each semester, partnering with teaching faculty to select content for outsourcing. Post-processing correction of digitized scans, loading to server, and creation of companion metadata would be carried out by RVC staff and student workers, and so costs will be absorbed into existing salaries. We are currently designing a digital workflow to lay over our existing slide production workflow, and are thinking about a realistic time frame to announce that we will no longer add slides to the RVC collection, although we will continue to circulate existing slides. Metadata Issues RVC will continue to create metadata records in IRIS; in summer of ’05 we will be upgrading to a new version that will take advantage of new functionalities in FileMaker 7, as well as the new 16
  • 17. VRA Core 4 and Cataloging Cultural Objects recommendations. This upgrade consists of two installations—one in summer of ’05 and the next in summer of ’06. This is because the Brown University project manager and her part-time programmer could not complete all necessary changes in one year. RVC has provided substantial input to the User Group discussion of necessary and desired modifications for the new version, and some of our local modifications have served as the basis for new tables and fields in this next version. Regarding the management system’s relationship to the IRIS image cataloging database, IRIS is capable of exporting data in tab-delimited format. If our image management system can function in similar manner to an OPAC in terms of displaying records, it will be possible to display exported IRIS data for images that are available in 35mm slide format only. The display data could show that there is no digital image, and that the searcher would need to borrow a slide from RVC. In this case, RVC’s second Technology Project of a Simple Search Interface to IRIS would be unnecessary. It will be possible to export these Slide Image records to CONTENTdm, and possibly to DSpace, but not to ARTstor. Intellectual Property Issues Rotch Visual Collections currently deals with IP issues in the following ways: ● limiting the number of slides copied from one source book/journal (except where faculty insist on having 2 or more copies of the same slide in the collection) ● circulating slides for on-campus use to MIT community only (except when faculty are traveling to present a lecture, or when School of Architecture requests that we accommodate certain visitors by providing access to the collection) ● posting Copyright notices in RVC that inform users of Copyright law and its restrictions ● stating on the slide label “Duplication Prohibited” ● assuming faculty are complying with Fair Use guidelines in use of our materials For digital materials, we propose to deal with IP issues in the following ways: ● limiting production of digital images to one copy per work/view and, where possible, licensing the image from vendor source rather than digitizing existing copywork slides ● authenticating access to licensed and copyright-protected images in the online digital collection to MIT community through use of certificates or other password protection 17
  • 18. ● providing Copyright and permissible usage statements to users, linked from the user interface ● possibly water- or digi-marking the image (could interfere with in-class presentation of images, however) ● assuming faculty are complying with Fair Use guidelines in use of our materials The above measures are standard among visual resources collections that are providing access to digital images in networked environments, and do meet requirements specified in our licenses with vendors for use of digital material acquired from them. 18
  • 19. Appendix 1 Standards Scanning: These standards will apply for RVC slides to be scanned, for digital purchases from vendors, or from digital files we accept from faculty/students/other image donors. ● monitor calibrated regularly to (MIT classroom equipment calibration should be matched for optimum viewing) ● scanned at least 3000 pixels on the long side, 8-24 bit depending on source material, saved as TIFF or JPEG ● derive smaller JPEG files (if the management software doesn’t do this dynamically) of about 800 pixels on long side for classroom projection size and between 200 to 400 pixels on long side for thumbnail size Metadata: ● descriptive metadata created in IRIS according to current VRA Core (version 4 to be released later this year with accompanying XML schema) and Cataloguing Cultural Objects recommendations, may be mapped to an extended Dublin Core set for which needed qualifiers would have to be created ● rights metadata will be recorded for each image for which such data is known or discoverable by RVC catalogers ● administrative metadata will be captured/recorded for each image 19
  • 20. Appendix 2 Digital Workflow I. Preparation Phase (before sending images out for scanning) o Collect slides returned by faculty or TA after class use o Separate b&w and color o Make either a) new photocopy of returned slides (after they have been checked in)—orient all in same direction, OR b) photocopy original circulation photocopy BEFORE checking slides in (before because easier to read without cross-outs) o Enter slide information in Excel log including OLD accession number or NEW surrogate number [log should include columns for course number, instruction, semester/year, etc.) o Assign sequential reference numbers to each image and record in log o Enter reference numbers in IRIS [?, perhaps in Assets table; can reference number become/be same as digital asset number?] o Record orientation of slides with arrow and written description in log (e.g. largest purple blotch is in upper left) o Unbind film from glass Gepes o Clean film with Pec o Place film in glassless mount o Write reference numbers in pencil on glassless mounts o Stamp glassless mounts with RVC or RVC Khan o Make X in bottom left of glassless mount to mark orientation o Reassemble glass Gepe or old mount (with rubberband) [clean glass of re-useable mounts now or later?] o Write reference number on glass Gepe or old mount 20
  • 21. o File glass Gepes or old mounts, in order of reference number, in boxes (use box marked with corresponding course number and semester/year) o Arrange glassless slides in order of reference number o Place in boxes and seal o Assign and record batch number and date picked up by BPI II. Metadata and Cataloging o Create or review Work record in IRIS o Create or review Surrogate record in IRIS o Enter course number in appropriate field in Surrogate record o Send source numbers or surrogate numbers to S.Sadow or S. Brittig for approval o Approve records o Generate new labels o Affix new labels to new white (front) glass Gepes and old (if possible) grey (back) o File labeled mounts in order of [reference number] o Generate new guide card labels where needed o Interfile new guide cards with labeled mounts o Batch load records to DAM III. Post-Processing Phase [Process digital images in order of file name (which should match sequential reference numbers); Use check list that includes name of processor and date of processing and screen color calibration settings, and each step in post-processing] o Compare digital image with original film using light table, loupe, and properly calibrated computer screen o Make color and/or contrast adjustments as needed o Crop digital image to our masking o Check orientation against original film and/or log notes; adjust orientation if needed 21
  • 22. o Enter digital asset information in IRIS including: Resolution Pixel dimensions File type File size Color-bit depth Color protocol Persistent URL? Etc. o Pass original film on for re-mounting and re-shelving o Batch load post-processed digital images to DAM IV. Re-Mounting and Re-Shelving Phase o Get slides from post-processing o Locate corresponding glass Gepes (with new labels) o Clean glass o Clean film o Check spreadsheet notes and scanning mount to verify orientation o Re-mount film in glass Gepe o Erase marks from glassless mount and file for re-use o Place slides in re-shelving area (with new guide card attached with rubber band where appropriate) ** we will want to have check lists for each phase and/or for entire process—people can initial and date each step upon completion 22
  • 23. 23
  • 24. Appendix 3 Storage & Archiving, Collection Management, Rights & Security Store/ Store Preserve Preserve Persistent Back Refresh Acquire Describe preserve associated links links URLs up / (capture, (user input master and metadata between between nightly migrate create, edit, metadata derivatives image related and convert, using (and on- and records notify reformat) templates the-fly metadata when and IRIS) creation of failure derivatives ) ARTstor Yes Yes Yes No Yes N/a Not yet My Work Yes (no) folder in Offline Viewer Content Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ? Yes Yes Yes (using dm (yes) web-based OASIS) DSpace Yes—with Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes tweaking (no) 24
  • 25. Narravision Yes Yes Yes ? ? ? ? ? Not yet (no) Storage & Archiving, Collection Management, Rights & Security (cont’d) File Record Display Supports Licensed Secure Admin module Digital mgmt use stats metadata VRA AND and non- access for managing rights (upload, (at item in multiple conversion MIT privileges mgmt log assets level?) formats to uniform content into sys) metasearch schema ARTstor Yes (but Yes Data No (uses Licensed? Yes Yes No only into (item elements special Yes (non- their level?) vary based metadata MIT) Viewer) on element collection set) Content Yes Yes (Yes) Yes Yes [?] Yes Yes Yes Yes DM (VRA, DC, EAD, poss. METS) DSpace Yes ? Yes Yes No Yes Yes No (VRA, DC) Narravision Yes ? ? ? Yes Yes? Yes No 25
  • 26. Search & Retrieval, Distribution Intellectual Simple Refine Browse Search on Sort Display Display Collection property (keyword) search (images by native and results search links to home pages rights and (search subject converted results as related with mgmt advanced within terms, by metadata thumbnails records descriptions, search results) collection, with copyright (Boolean, etc.) tombstone and by field, data, permissions with limit copyright, info, search by subject tips collection) terms ARTstor No Yes No? Yes Converted Yes Yes No No (keyword, (browsing only (except field, and taxonomy) by Boolean) date) ContentDM Yes Yes—all Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (and [copyright?] sub- sort) DSpace No Yes No Yes planned ? Yes ? Yes (keyword, [copyright?] field only) Narravision No ? ? ? ? ? Yes ? Yes [copyright?] 26
  • 27. Search & Retrieval, Distribution (cont’d) Authenticate Batch Supports Can turn off Get metadata Saving to Restrict access for larger download JPEG 2000 features not and image files CD or access based than thumbnail files (using in our scope back out of sys DVD, on privileges checkbox-like (linked by USB stick feature) accession number element) ARTstor Yes Yes Yes (OV) N/a ? Small Yes format (instructor only privileges) ContentDM Yes Yes Yes ? Yes (OAI) Yes Yes (by item, by user, by IP add) DSpace ? No No N/a Yes Yes Yes Narravision ? Yes ? ? ? ? Yes 27
  • 28. Administrative, Interoperability, etc. Admin Client Works with Web- Software Application Plug-ins Customization client? (end- multiple based, client hosted required required (of Runs on user) browsers uses required XYZ) multiple runs on (Mozilla, web platforms? multiple Safari, IE, server platform Netscape) s ARTstor N/a N/a Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not allowed (Offline (Offline Viewer) viewer) Needed for JPEG2000? ContentD Yes Yes Yes (IE Yes ? Yes No No M recommended) DSpace Yes N/a Yes Yes No Yes No No Narravision ? ? ? Yes No ? ? ? Administrative, Interoperability, etc. (cont’d) Maintenance Multi-seat Works Authentication Authentication Database contract site license with with with user support offered (tech available multipl certificates name and support) (for X e DBs password number simultaneou s users) ARTstor N/a (hosted) Yes (no limit N/A ? Yes N/a on # seats, based on range of IP add) 28
  • 29. ContentD Yes Yes ? Yes Yes ? M DSpace Yes Yes N/a Yes Yes ? Narravision ? N/a N/a ? Yes ? 29

×