Reference Glossary
Access log
The DAM's record of who viewed, previewed, or downloaded a specific asset and when — narrower in scope than a full audit trail, which also covers edits and administrative actions.
Why it matters in a DAM
Access logs are what answer the specific question "who had access to this file before it leaked" or "did this partner's license window actually get respected" — questions an audit trail's edit history can't answer on its own, since a file can be viewed and downloaded by many people without ever being edited. Many DAM platforms only log downloads by default and skip logging simple previews, which leaves a real gap when investigating who merely looked at a sensitive or embargoed asset without downloading it.
A worked example
Common mistake
Conflating access logs with audit trails, and separately, not verifying whether the DAM logs previews as well as downloads — the default in many platforms is downloads-only, leaving no record of who merely viewed a sensitive or embargoed asset without saving a copy.
An access log is the narrower cousin of a full audit trail: instead of covering every kind of action on an asset, it specifically tracks who viewed, previewed, or downloaded a given file, and when. It’s the record that gets pulled when the question is about exposure — who had the ability to see or take a copy of this asset — rather than about the asset’s editorial history.
This distinction matters in practice because the questions access logs answer come up in specific, often urgent situations: proving to a licensor that a stock asset’s usage stayed within its permitted download window, tracing how a confidential product photo ended up outside the company before an official announcement, or demonstrating due diligence to a partner or regulator about who could reach a given file. None of these require knowing whether the file’s content ever changed — they require knowing who touched it.
The practical gap to check for is whether a DAM logs previews and views, not just downloads. Many platforms default to logging only the download event, on the reasoning that viewing is too frequent an action to log usefully — but that default means an investigation into who merely looked at a sensitive asset without downloading it turns up nothing, at exactly the point where that distinction matters most.
Frequently asked
What does an access log track that an audit trail's edit history doesn't?
It specifically tracks who viewed, previewed, or downloaded a given asset and when, answering "who had access" rather than "what changed."
What question does an access log answer during a leak investigation?
Who had the ability to see or take a copy of an asset before it leaked — tracing exposure rather than editorial history.
What's a common default gap in DAM access logging?
Many platforms log only downloads by default and skip logging simple previews, leaving no record of who merely viewed a sensitive asset without saving a copy.
How does an access log help with license compliance?
It can prove to a licensor that a stock asset's usage stayed within its permitted download window, by showing exactly who downloaded it and when.
Is an access log the same as an audit trail?
No — an access log is narrower, covering only viewing, previewing, and downloading, while an audit trail also covers edits and administrative actions.
Why might "who saw this asset" come up empty in an investigation?
Because the DAM's default logs downloads only, so anyone who previewed the embargoed asset without downloading it leaves no trace.