Talk:Digimarc

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

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

• We now have 124 employees ^[1] Done
• Our revenue for full year 2013 was 35 million (currently the page shows for 2011) ^[2]  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 ^[3] 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 ^[4] 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.^[5] 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. ^[6][7] 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^[8][9][10], but maybe different sources are required for inclusion of this information? ^[11][12] GeminiDrive (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)