Talk:Brand licensing

Brands Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business High‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marketing & Advertising High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

I've been wronged!

I have recently had additions removed from the wikipedia page and would like to know why. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.146.82 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

material from copyrighted source

I have been trying to contribute to the content on the "brand licensing" wiki page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Brand_licensing. The current content is from a legal perspective and we would like to provide a "brand" perspective to the information. I have several years of experience in brand licensing and have authored several copyright modules on the topic. I had referenced one of these modules - "Introduction to Brand Licensing" in the content that I added in. Here is the summary of the edits I provided: Gave a definition of brand licensing from a business perspectives. Included sections on why companies license brands, expectations of licensors and licensees, explained the brand licensing process including the licensed product process flow and the royalty payments process flow. Here is a link to the history of edits we have made: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Brand_licensing&action=history We'd appreciate any help in improving the current content on the page.

I hope you don't mind my added header her. It seems appropriate, but you can change it if you like. There seem to be several problems with your recent edits. I think your efforts to improve this article are great, and I'm sorry to throw up speedbumps, but it looks like you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia some more first.

The most serious problem is that it looks like there are copyright violations. Now, it might be that you're a copyright owner and the apparent violations are of your own material, but even that gets tricky here. First, you need to show you're really the copyright owner, and second, you need to make sure to give the right kinds of permission for such material to be used here (keeping in mind that once it's used here, it can be copied and used elsewhere. I'm not an expert on WP copyright rules, but this looks like a good spot for you to look.
The second problem is that it looks like you might have a conflict of interest, since your additions refer heavily to your outside material. Being an expert in something doesn't disqualify you from editing, but it can be a good idea to propose changes on the talk page if it looks like you're being self-promotional.
It's not clear that Introduction to Brand Licensing is a reliable source. Is it self-published, or published by your business? This makes it look suspicious as a source.
Finally, there's just style. See Wikipedia is not a textbook. The existing introductory paragraph is more in line with WP's style guidelines than your recent additions. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]