A feed can connect successfully while its intended use still falls outside the applicable licence. Nasdaq’s published market-data materials distinguish agreements and usage policies, while Nasdaq Data Link terms restrict redistribution except as permitted under the contract. Those sources illustrate why a broker should review permissions separately from the engineering task of receiving prices. Nasdaq: European Data Pricing and Policies Nasdaq Data Link: Terms of use
Follow the evidence
Trace how the event could reach markets, then inspect a competing explanation.
Compare explanations
Switch lenses to see what each account explains—and what remains uncertain.
WFN analysis: imagine a broker receives one data stream and uses it in an internal dashboard, a risk calculation and a customer trading screen. The technical source is the same, but those uses may involve different contractual categories. A permission covering one workflow should not be assumed to cover the others without reading the definitions and grant of rights. Derived information raises another hypothetical question. A team might combine several inputs into its own indicator and assume that changing the output removes every licensing condition. Whether that assumption is valid depends on the agreement’s treatment of derived data and the proposed distribution. Engineering novelty is not itself evidence of contractual permission. Distribution through an intermediary adds an additional layer to examine. A vendor may provide convenient access while the upstream data owner retains conditions on use. The broker needs to know which rights the vendor can grant and which obligations remain with the broker. A chain of technical integrations is not automatically a chain of complete legal permissions.
WFN analysis: imagine a broker receives one data stream and uses it in an internal dashboard, a risk calculation and a customer trading screen. The technical source is the same, but those uses may involve different contractual categories. A permission covering one workflow should not be assumed to cover the others without reading the definitions and grant of rights. Derived information raises another hypothetical question. A team might combine several inputs into its own indicator and assume that changing the output removes every licensing condition. Whether that assumption is valid depends on the agreement’s treatment of derived data and the proposed distribution. Engineering novelty is not itself evidence of contractual permission. Distribution through an intermediary adds an additional layer to examine. A vendor may provide convenient access while the upstream data owner retains conditions on use. The broker needs to know which rights the vendor can grant and which obligations remain with the broker. A chain of technical integrations is not automatically a chain of complete legal permissions.
For each product, record the source, agreement, entitled users, intended uses and downstream recipients. Link those entries to the actual screens and systems consuming the data. This makes a new client-facing feature easier to review before launch and helps identify when an existing use has changed enough to require a new contractual check. Ask the relevant provider for written clarification where the agreement leaves the proposed use uncertain. Preserve the response with the product and usage description, because a broad sales assurance may not answer a specific distribution question. This article does not quote a universal licensing fee or certify any vendor’s rights; it explains why the permissions review belongs beside feed quality and latency testing.
Start with the agreement for the actual product
Nasdaq’s European pricing and policies portal lists data agreements, subscriber documents and guidance for uses including non-display and derived data. The portal covers particular Nasdaq data products; its categories should not be treated as a universal tariff or an identical rulebook for every exchange and vendor. Nasdaq: European Data Pricing and Policies
Nasdaq Data Link’s terms separately restrict selling, retransmitting or redistributing data outside the uses authorised by the agreement. A platform’s API access and a licence to expose the resulting information to third parties are therefore distinct matters. The relevant permission must be read in the applicable product contract, including any authorised downstream use. Nasdaq Data Link: Terms of use
A single feed can support several different workflows
WFN analysis: imagine a broker receives one data stream and uses it in an internal dashboard, a risk calculation and a customer trading screen. The technical source is the same, but those uses may involve different contractual categories. A permission covering one workflow should not be assumed to cover the others without reading the definitions and grant of rights.
Derived information raises another hypothetical question. A team might combine several inputs into its own indicator and assume that changing the output removes every licensing condition. Whether that assumption is valid depends on the agreement’s treatment of derived data and the proposed distribution. Engineering novelty is not itself evidence of contractual permission.
Distribution through an intermediary adds an additional layer to examine. A vendor may provide convenient access while the upstream data owner retains conditions on use. The broker needs to know which rights the vendor can grant and which obligations remain with the broker. A chain of technical integrations is not automatically a chain of complete legal permissions.
Build a rights inventory alongside the system inventory
For each product, record the source, agreement, entitled users, intended uses and downstream recipients. Link those entries to the actual screens and systems consuming the data. This makes a new client-facing feature easier to review before launch and helps identify when an existing use has changed enough to require a new contractual check.
Ask the relevant provider for written clarification where the agreement leaves the proposed use uncertain. Preserve the response with the product and usage description, because a broad sales assurance may not answer a specific distribution question. This article does not quote a universal licensing fee or certify any vendor’s rights; it explains why the permissions review belongs beside feed quality and latency testing.