Logistics and distribution
Supplier catalogs and cross-references: what distributors can license
By SourceX Editorial · Reviewed by Noah Loul ·
Short answer
Supplier product content rights depend on who created the content and under what terms. Descriptions, attributes and cross-references your staff created are usually the strongest candidates for licensing. Manufacturer images, spec sheets and syndicated feeds typically remain under the supplier's or data provider's terms, so they are excluded unless an agreement clearly allows the use.
Key takeaways
- Sort product content by origin first: created by your staff, supplied by manufacturers, or obtained from an industry database or syndicator.
- Staff-created descriptions, attributes, cross-references and application notes are usually the most licensable product content.
- Manufacturer images, datasheets and feed content usually come with use terms tied to selling that manufacturer's products.
- Sales and support history that names supplier products is a separate question from licensing the supplier's own content.
Who owns the product content in a distributor's catalog?#
Product content in a distributor's catalog usually has three kinds of owner: the distributor for content its staff created, manufacturers for content they supplied, and data providers for content obtained through industry databases or syndication services. A single item page can mix all three, which is why a rights review starts by tagging origin.
Ownership and permission are separate questions. A manufacturer may own a product photo and let the distributor display it to sell the product; that permission usually says nothing about providing the photo to an AI developer, and silence is generally not treated as permission.
Copyright, trademark and contract each play a role. Copyright can cover original text and images, trademarks cover brand names and logos, and contracts such as distribution agreements and data subscriptions can restrict use even where copyright does not reach.
What can usually be licensed? A rule table#
Content your staff created can usually be considered for licensing, supplier content usually cannot without permission, and industry database content follows its subscription terms. The table states the usual position and the check that decides each case; counsel confirms the answer for each agreement.
Two rows cause most disputes. Attributes keyed in by catalog staff from a supplier datasheet are usually facts recorded by your team, while attributes loaded in bulk from the supplier's feed arrive under the feed's terms, even when the values are identical.
| Content type | Typical origin | Usual position | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Descriptions your team wrote | Product managers and catalog staff | Usually licensable | Whether text was copied or adapted from supplier copy |
| Attributes your team entered | Catalog staff, datasheets, returned-part testing | Usually licensable as data | Whether attributes arrived in bulk from a supplier feed |
| Cross-references your team built | Inside sales and product specialists | Usually licensable | Whether the source was a licensed interchange database |
| Application notes and Q&A | Your specialists | Usually licensable after preparation | Supplier text pasted into answers and customer details |
| Manufacturer images and datasheets | Manufacturers | Usually excluded | Distribution agreement and content use terms |
| Manufacturer descriptions and marketing copy | Manufacturers, often through feeds | Usually excluded | Feed terms and any reuse grant |
| Industry database and syndicated content | Data providers and trade associations | Excluded unless the subscription allows it | Subscription license and redistribution limits |
| Classification codes | Published standards | Often usable as labels | The standard's own license terms |
Where do supplier restrictions come from?#
Supplier restrictions on product content come mainly from contracts: distribution and dealer agreements, brand guidelines, supplier portal terms and feed or API terms. These documents commonly let the distributor use content to market and sell the supplier's products and say little about anything else.
Counsel usually reads permissions narrowly. A clause allowing use of content in connection with sales of the products does not ordinarily extend to licensing it to a third party, and a confidentiality clause can cover technical information even when a document is not marked.
- Distribution, dealer or reseller agreements, especially confidentiality and intellectual property clauses.
- Brand and content use guidelines that govern images, logos and copy.
- Supplier portal and extranet terms of use for downloaded files.
- Feed, catalog or API terms for automated content delivery.
- Technical bulletins, price files and rebate programs, which are usually marked confidential.
Are cross-references protected?#
Cross-references sit in a middle zone: in the US a single fact, such as one part number replacing another, is generally not protected by copyright, but a compiled cross-reference database can carry protection through its selection and arrangement and, more often, through the contract under which it was obtained. Some jurisdictions, including the EU, also recognize separate database rights.
The deciding question is origin. A table your inside sales team built over years from its own research and customer requests, matching competitor and OEM numbers to your SKUs, is usually your own work product; a table downloaded from a manufacturer's interchange tool or a paid parts database usually comes with terms that limit reuse.
Mixed tables are common, so tag each row's source where possible. Where rows cannot be separated, counsel may treat the whole table as restricted, which is a good reason to start recording sources now.
Illustrative: a power transmission distributor sorts its catalog#
Illustrative: a fictional power transmission and bearing distributor has a PIM full of product content and an ERP with years of quotes, orders and cross-references. Its general counsel is asked whether any of it can be part of a licensing review.
The catalog team tags content by origin. Manufacturer images, datasheets and descriptions from supplier feeds become supplier content; descriptions rewritten from scratch, attributes captured from testing returned parts and an inside-sales cross-reference table become company content; an interchange table licensed from a parts database becomes third-party content.
Counsel reviews the largest supplier agreements and the database subscription. The decision is to exclude supplier and third-party content, include company-created cross-references and application notes, and treat order history that names supplier products as a separate question with its own review.
Does sales history that names supplier products need permission?#
Sales and support history that names supplier products is usually treated differently from the supplier's own content, because the records are the distributor's account of its own transactions. Distribution agreements can still include confidentiality terms covering pricing, rebates, volumes and sell-through data, so counsel checks them before the history is scoped.
Preparation often resolves the overlap. Brand and part names can remain where agreements allow, while supplier cost, rebate amounts and special pricing are removed or transformed; where an agreement restricts sharing sell-through data, the affected product lines can be excluded instead of the whole archive.
How a rights review handles product content#
A rights review handles product content by tagging origin, mapping each origin to its governing documents and recording a decision for each content type. SourceX does this in the Rights step of the SourceX five-step transaction, after Supply has identified the record families and before Preparation removes anything.
Those decisions flow into the SourceX Evidence Packet, which records provenance, licensing rights and permitted use for every content type in a package, so the buyer sees the same picture counsel approved. If a supplier relationship later changes, the packet also shows which content was never in scope.
- Tag content by origin: company, supplier or third party.
- Pull the governing documents for each supplier and data provider in scope.
- Record a decision per content type: include, exclude or transform.
- Note where supplier names, prices or volumes appear in transaction records.
- Get counsel's sign-off before any sample is prepared.
Frequently asked questions
If we edited a manufacturer's description, is it ours?
Not necessarily. Light edits to supplier copy may leave the supplier's text and rights in place, while a description written from scratch by your staff is more clearly your own. Where origin is unclear, counsel will usually treat the text as supplier content unless an agreement allows broader use.
Can we license product photos we took ourselves?
Photos your staff took are usually your own work, though they show the supplier's product and trademarks. Many teams leave product photography out of AI licensing scopes anyway, because the value tends to sit in text records. Counsel can confirm whether brand guidelines add limits.
What about private-label items?
Private-label content is often the clearest case, since the brand is yours and your team typically produced the copy and attributes. Check the agreement with the contract manufacturer for ownership of drawings, specifications and test data, which may stay with the manufacturer even when the brand is yours.
Can classification codes stay in the data?
Codes such as UNSPSC categories or GS1 GTINs are commonly used as labels on product records, but each standard has its own terms. Using codes to label your own records is usually viewed differently from redistributing the code lists themselves, and counsel should confirm the position for each standard.
Does a supplier need to be told about a license?
Only if an agreement requires notice or consent, or if supplier confidential information stays in scope. Most reviews aim to remove supplier content and confidential terms so the license covers only the distributor's own records, which can reduce the need for notice. Counsel confirms this deal by deal.
Related resources
See if your company qualifies
A short company assessment. No data uploads are needed.