Create a rights register that identifies the exact use, the exact grant and the evidence supporting it. Do not ask only whether the supplier is licensed; ask whether it can authorise this publisher, this content and this distribution method.
The Copyright Office advises identifying the rights owner and describing the material, intended use and audience when seeking permission. The register below adapts that approach into a publisher procurement tool; it is not a legally prescribed form. (copyright.gov)
What should a demo game licensing agreement checklist cover?
| Permission or obligation | Evidence to request | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Contracting parties | Executed agreement or clearly attributable permission | Does the grant name our publishing entity? |
| Upstream authority | Studio confirmation, mandate, relevant redacted grant or contractual representation reviewed by counsel | Can this distributor authorise downstream demo publishing? |
| Content | Named schedule or defined eligible catalogue | Are partner-studio games included or separately approved? |
| Delivery method | Express iframe/widget/API/self-hosting scope | Can we display the supplied service, or also copy and host files? |
| Domains | Domain schedule and addition process | Are staging, subdomains and acquired sites covered? |
| Territories | Affirmative permissions and exclusions | Does the scope address our intended US audience? |
| Presentation | Editorial, promotional, advertising and affiliate-use conditions | Are wagering referral links permitted alongside the demo? |
| Assets | Thumbnail, logo, screenshot and video permissions | May we crop, translate or retain assets? |
| Metadata | Storage, publication, modification and retention rights | Does access permit public reuse? |
| Configuration | Game/version identifiers and relevant limitations | Are we describing the same version that visitors play? |
| Duration and withdrawal | Term, renewal, notice and suspension provisions | What happens if one studio withdraws? |
| Exit | Export, removal and retention provisions | What may remain on review pages after termination? |
How do linking, embedding and self-hosting differ in your review?
Record these as separate proposed uses:
- External link: directs visitors to another service; assess the destination and the surrounding promotional claims.
- Iframe: displays a remotely hosted service inside your page.
- JavaScript widget: introduces supplier code into the integration; review its execution and network behaviour as well as its output.
- Self-hosted game: involves delivery and hosting of files; obtain the appropriate distribution and hosting rights.
- Asset reuse: concerns artwork or media independently of whether a game can launch.
- Redistribution: supplies access or files onwards to another publisher, app or client; do not include it by assumption.
The browser’s ability to display an iframe is a technical fact, not a contract. MDN explains that server-side framing policies determine whether a browser permits embedding; that mechanism does not establish the publisher’s commercial rights. (developer.mozilla.org)
What evidence labels should you use?
Use separate fields rather than a single reassuring approval badge:
| Label | Meaning in this project |
|---|---|
| Documented | A retained document explicitly addresses the requirement; record its clause and date. |
| Supplier-claimed | A representative or product page asserts something not yet established by the required evidence. |
| Observed in testing | A reproducible test supports a limited technical finding. |
| Inferred | An analytical conclusion drawn from stated evidence, with its reasoning recorded. |
| Unknown | The requirement remains unresolved. |
A permission email can be useful evidence, but have your reviewer assess the sender’s authority, scope and enforceability. Do not invent a universal rule that only one contract format is valid.
Which public terms deserve follow-up?
Slots Launch’s public terms describe a revocable licence and allow modification, suspension or discontinuation with or without notice. Our procurement conclusion: request the agreement governing your paid publisher service and establish whether it provides more specific rights and continuity protection. The public page alone does not settle title-level US publishing scope. (slotslaunch.com)
Likewise, SlotCatalog’s publicly accessible iGamingBI commercial PDF states that its data should not be published on affiliate resources. Treat that as a restriction requiring clarification or a different written grant—not as permission to republish data because you can purchase API access. The document’s current applicability to a new quotation remains unconfirmed. (slotcatalog.com)