Talk:Digimarc

awards etc.

Hello, I was wondering why the last paragraph of our histors keeps on getting deleted? The paragraph includes a significant part of our recent history and I would like to include it. What would you recomend? (AKwoog) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKwoog (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an award showcase, nor may it be used for promotional puffery. It is a neutral encyclopedia. —EncMstr (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Digimarc Logo

Could someone please help me upload Digimarc's logo onto this page? The proper logo can be found here: https://www.digimarc.com/assets/images/global/digimarc.gif

Or tell me how I can do it myself. THANKS! Aydin.kirkewoog (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You know.. the second I do something wrong you guys take down the page, but when I need help to better the page you guys are no where to be found... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydin.kirkewoog (talk • contribs) 15:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The technology?

I would like to know how the watermarking technology they use works. --TiagoTiago (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place. This article was created by a marketing person at the company to promote it and nobody else has ever found Digimarc interesting enough to add anything substantive to that pablum. Some work was done to delete the most offensive conflict of interest stuff, but you'll not find anything useful here. Move along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.238.89 (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Products

Hi there. After reviewing a few other Wikipedia pages belonging to Oregon companies (Nike, InFocus, etc...) it was observed that they had "Products" sections. The effort was made to keep the tone encyclopedic. There is a benefit to listing the two services that are available to any user... they are an accessible point to the somewhat esoteric nature of Digimarc's technology and hopefully this will help people understand better the commercial applications of digital watermarking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigimarcCorp (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Although also the company's name, the word "Digimarc" needs to proceed the word "Discover," much like it does for "Digimarc for Images." These are two registered product names. Certainly Digimarc would prefer to own the word Discover on its own, but can never refer to their product without the full "Digimarc Discover" since the Discover credit card company owns the rights. Added the registered symbol if that helps or makes a difference. The attention to detail from the Wikipedia community is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeminiDrive (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

COI

Quite aside from the present discussion on WP:AN: this article was started by a AKwoog (talk · contribs) back in May 2010. That editor only edited this article, that month. The next month, in June 2010, a Aydin.kirkewoog (talk · contribs) came along, editing until March 2011, and again: only this article.

There is a person with a similar sounding name, who was in marketing at Digimarc. (Pr WP:OUTING I rather say no more.)

In August 2012 DigimarcCorp (talk · contribs) came along, only editing this article, until blocked pr {{usernameblock}}.

I think this, all in all, deserves a {{coi}}. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I work with Digimarc and I know Wikipedia protocols have not been followed by our team in the past as they should have. I'd like to suggest a change, and if this approach works, a few more. Thank you.

Regarding the second paragraph under "Content Protection," it is more accurate to state:

"Along with book and document protection, Digimarc verifies digital image ownership and source by modifying images with the imperceptible Digimarc Barcode, enabling brands, photographers and rights holders to manage the use of images throughout the digital supply chain and across the public internet."

The attribution for this statement, would be: https://exchange.adobe.com/creativecloud.details.12783.digimarc-barcode-for-digital-images.html

Thank you. Digital Identity Digital Identity (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision Request from Digimarc

Hello, I work for Digimarc and would like to request a few updates to this page:

• We now have 124 employees  Done
• Our revenue for full year 2013 was 35 million (currently the page shows for 2011)  Done
• We acquired a small Bay Area company called Attributor in late 2012. This would affect our history and products section, as the Digimarc * Guardian product is currently separate from Digimarc Discover and Digimarc for Images. Digimarc Guardian serves book publishers  Done but see below
• We would love to at least have our logo in the box on the right. I can provide in any format needed.  Done See below
• This may be too marketing-focused, so do with as you wish: We have launched a new product called Digimarc Barcode (within Digimarc Discover) and with it broke the Guinness World Record for scanning and bagging 50 items at the NRF tradeshow in January 2014  Not done

Thanks for all the edits! I appreciate you taking the time, Philbrick. GeminiDrive (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, thank you for the comments in the talk page, which have been illumninating regarding proper Wikipedia protocol. I want to avoid a conflict of interest and hope that addressing changes to the Digimarc page in this manner is helpful and appropriate. We have in the past posted directly to this page as GeminiDrive (Digimarc's street), but after reading the comments above and seeing how Qualcomm handles update requests, this is how we hopefully can facilitate factual Wikipedia updates going forward. The other user you refer to under ″COI″ has not been with the company in quite some time. We'll monitor the Talk section for questions or other updates. Thanks again. GeminiDrive (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The link says 149 employees. which is correct?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I updated the employee count to 149, per the link. If that is incorrect, please explain.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

We've hired more people since my original request, so yes, thanks for researching and implementing the correct number of employees. Much appreciated! GeminiDrive (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I copied the log from this page, saved it as a PNG, confirmed it was sufficiently low resolution, and filled out a non-free use rationale at File:Digimarc logo.png. Let me know if this is not the desired logo. --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I added the acquisition. It doesn't seem to be a major item, but it only took one sentence, so I think it is fine.

Thanks again, Philbrick, and for redirecting the former Attributor Wikipedia page to Digimarc's. I would lobby for this as an additional sentence within the "Products" section, since it's an entirely different audience than Digimarc Discover's or Digimarc for Image's.GeminiDrive (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Does this change the earlier sentence "The new Digimarc corporation consists solely of its digital watermarking business"? If so, do you have some suggested wording? I won't necessarily copy the suggested wording, but if you can explain the situation, I can be in a better position to adjust, if necessary, the earlier sentence.

Possibly it would make more sense to add the word "commercial"... "The new Digimarc corporation consists primarily of its commercial digital watermarking business." I hesitate to use the world "solely" because we've always had and continue to have various business relationships with governmental agencies, although it's not nearly as visible. GeminiDrive (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not done the other requested edit. I understand the desire to include a Guinness world record event, but I would like to see it reported in something other than a bizjournal source. Is there one? That may not even be enough. There are tens of thousands of Guinness records, and not all are reported, so I will want to see better refs, then get some feedback on the inclusion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I see where you are coming from. It was reported in a few other places, but I'll leave it to your discretion if they are any more newsworthy than the BizJournal source. GeminiDrive (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, regarding Digimarc Discover (in the Products section): it's more than just mobile engagement now. However, the text that speaks to mobile engagement is accurate and is user-centric, but the Digimarc Discover platform is also an enabler of product scanning at retail point-of-sale, which supports the business side. This solution exists and our relationship with one of the largest scanner manufacturers (Datalogic) has been documented, but maybe different sources are required for inclusion of this information? GeminiDrive (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Advise on How to Offer Suggestions

I work for Digimarc and would like to offer edits and suggestion to improve the accuracy. I'm aware some Digimarc reps have gone in and changed things before, not following protocol. Can one of the editors please advise. Thank you. Digital Identity (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Digital Identity: The cleanest approach would be to list specific changes or rewritten paragraphs here, on this talk page. Impartial editors, such as myself, who are watching this page (17 currently) may choose to act. The article has a mixed history with Digimarc employees making unhelpful edits. —EncMstr (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Patents

The article seems to suggest that the first digital patent was awarded in 1997. There is a link, which doesn't link to the patent but to a company website that doesn't mention such patent. Doing a google search, I find many patents, some apparently before 1997. I don't have time or interest to get to the bottom of this. Perhaps the earlier patents are not digital. Perhaps the wording of the statement in the article is simply ambiguous. If it is as it seems, it would be helpful for the link to actually reference some confirmation that it is the first such patent. If that's not possible, perhaps a link to the patent itself. Probably a link to google patents would be fine. Victor Engel (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)