Duplicate catalogs pointing to the same asset


In Ver 11.2, we could have multiple catalogs with records pointing to the same original assets. Now when I attempt to copy records into a new catalog, it asks where to duplicate the originals. Doesn’t this lead to the proliferation of derivative copies? I just want to limit access to a section of records within one catalog without giving access to the whole catalog.

How can I duplicate records without duplicating originals?



When you use the Copy Items feature in Portfolio Web, you aren’t creating copies of records; you are making copies of the files themselves. There is no way to copy just the records from one catalog to another in Portfolio 2016.

You could theoretically create a new catalog and set up a watched folder that is a subfolder of a watched folder in another catalog. For example, you could have a Digital Assets watched folder, with subfolders for each year: 2016, 2015, 2014, etc. You could create a catalog for 2016 Assets and have the 2016 subfolder as a watched folder.

However, we don’t encourage this for files that are still being actively worked with as there is no way to keep records in two separate catalogs in sync. If you update metadata in the 2016 catalog from my example above, Portfolio embeds the changes to the metadata in the file and updates the file modification date. The Digital Assets catalog will see that the file has updated and use the embedded metadata to update its record, then write the changed metadata back out to the file (to ensure that the file has the same metadata as the catalog record), which updates the file modification date again. This will cause the 2016 catalog to see that the file has updated and update its record… I think you can see where this is going.


Thanks for the response… I was afraid of this…the ability to copy records between catalogs was one of the features we used the most in the desktop client up to Ver 11.2, that and the ability to navigate directly to the original asset using the view original function are great losses in functionality for this new version.



We have run in to the same need. The only option I have been able to come up with is to create a separate catalog ingesting the select group of assets in order to provide different access. What is happening is that the database is now technically assigning two different asset id’s to the same asset, plus catalogs are now in contest with each other for updating metadata. In theory this is an obvious bad practice and could eventually cause problems. We haven’t experienced anything detrimental just yet with this approach.

I did have a talk with the development team about improving user rights management functionality in the system. Some of the improvements are pretty massive and would talk a long time to be implemented. They are looking at some other parts that would be less intensive to implement. At this point the only thing we can do is wait for this piece to be improved.