Interview objective: Obtain a usable permissions checklist, not a generic assurance that the games are public or free.
Put this to: Jeff Ifrah, the proposed licensor’s rights representative and the buyer’s counsel.
Why it matters to buyers: The Library of Congress recommends obtaining permission in writing and clarifying the item, duration, method and context of use. The Copyright Office also cautions that whether permission is required depends on the proposed use and applicable limitations. The purchasing question is therefore narrower and more useful than asking whether all embedding is lawful or unlawful. (loc.gov)
Draft framing — a good answer should cover:
- Identification of the contracting entity and the party entitled to authorise the content.
- Separate treatment of iframe embedding, external linking, self-hosting, redistribution and asset reuse.
- Named production domains, staging environments, subdomains, intended territories and permitted promotional context.
- Duration, revocation, takedown handling and what happens to existing pages after termination.
- Which points require specialist legal interpretation rather than procurement judgement.
Make the answer concrete: “Show us a redacted permission schedule you would accept, then identify the missing wording that would stop this launch.”
Buyer output: A demo game licensing agreement checklist with a source clause, evidence owner and unresolved question for every requirement.
Expert quote — awaiting interview: [Approved quotation, name, role, interview date and scope qualification.]