Treat permission as a gate, not a weighted feature. Assess each gate as Pass, Hold—evidence missing, or Fail—contradicts the requirement. A Hold blocks production approval just as a Fail does, but requires a different remediation action.
| Gate | Evidence required for a Pass | Hold or Fail examples | Accountable reviewer |
|---|---|---|---|
| G1. Authority and permitted use | Executed agreement or counsel-accepted written grant from an authorised counterparty; identifiable games or an effective catalogue schedule; explicit coverage of the proposed publishing method | Public demo URL; sales assurance without a grant; distributor unable to substantiate downstream authority | Legal adviser and founder |
| G2. Domains, audience and assets | Named domains or clearly defined domain scope; intended territories and exclusions; permission for relevant screenshots, logos, metadata and promotional placements | “Worldwide” contradicted by studio restrictions; a licence covering one domain when five are planned; missing asset rights | Legal adviser and content lead |
| G3. Product and promotional scope | Written description of the no-stake, no-prize experience; inventory of outbound links, adverts, registrations and any additional mechanics; review of applicable obligations | A tournament, redeemable reward or paid-credit feature introduced into a demo-only brief without reassessment | Product owner and legal adviser |
| G4. Unresolved legal, privacy or security blockers | Documented review of the proposed audience, data flows and presentation; required controls implemented; no unresolved issue designated critical by the responsible reviewer | Undisclosed third-party collection; unapproved wagering redirects; exposed production secret; required controls absent | Privacy/legal and engineering |
These are buyer approval rules, not a statement that every transaction requires identical paperwork. A narrow, properly authorised studio permission may be sufficient for a narrow use. Conversely, a lengthy contract that does not cover the actual use should not pass.
First Look Games provides a useful illustration of scope-specific terms: its publisher EULA permits specified promotional and review uses, restricts sublicensing, and requires publishers not to proactively target markets that individual studios designate as restricted. Request the relevant studio profiles and resolve how those restrictions apply to your properties. Do not assume platform membership settles every territory or use case. (firstlookgames.com)
What belongs in the demo licensing evidence register?
Create one record for each supplier–studio–content-scope relationship. Record:
- The contracting entity and the party granting permission.
- The agreement, clause, schedule or permission email supporting the grant.
- Whether the use is iframe embedding, external linking, self-hosting, asset reuse or onward redistribution.
- Covered domains, subdomains, staging environments and territories.
- Conditions concerning advertising, affiliate links, attribution, age controls and branding.
- Effective date, expiry, withdrawal rights and termination requirements.
- The person who reviewed the evidence and the date of the next review.
Do not require disclosure of an entire confidential upstream agreement by default. Ask counsel what evidence is sufficient: for example, a relevant redacted grant, direct studio confirmation, or another verifiable statement of authority with appropriate contractual protection.