Written by DROPS.ST.
Before a supplier uses artwork for a cannabis business, identify the exact proof, intended use and people authorized to approve it. Keep factual review, rights review and release permission separate. A designer’s completed file is not automatically the version the business agreed to use.
DROPS gives the shop-side comparison a useful foundation: product names, descriptions, units and images sit in a common catalogue shared with connected Telegram shopping. Compare proposed artwork with those approved item facts, then check the independent supplier proof through its own process.
This guide concerns evidence and sign-off. It provides no manufacturing instructions, package specification or regulatory clearance.
Define the use before reviewing the image
Identify whether the asset is for a shop image, permitted business material, apparel or regulated product packaging. Those uses can need different reviewers and conditions.
Record the actual product or business reference and the intended audience, surface and version. An image that suits one use should not silently become an approved label for another.
Ask who supplied the wording and artwork, which source supports product facts and who can authorize the proposed use. Keep unresolved ownership or factual questions visible.
Keep an artwork-release record
Use one record for the proof being released. This original aid is not a native DROPS design or print-approval tool.
| Record entry | What to retain | Release check |
|---|---|---|
| Intended use | Actual product, material, surface, permitted channels and markets | Review covers this use |
| Exact proof | Identifiable file or proof version | Everyone reviews the same asset |
| Source facts | Approved item wording, unit and reference | Artwork does not change the meaning |
| Rights and conditions | Actual permission, exclusions and relevant limits | Unresolved rights remain open |
| Review responsibilities | Requester, factual/qualified reviewer and release owner | Access does not substitute for authority |
| Accepted outcome | Approved version or specific requested revision | Conditional approval is not unconditional release |
| Supplier handoff | Version acknowledged and remaining questions | Supplier is using the intended proof |
| Superseded copies | Earlier files and their responsible owners | Old artwork is not reused by accident |
Record the actual decision and date. A filename containing “final” is not evidence of approval.
Obtain the review appropriate to the material
For regulated cannabis packaging and labels, use the responsible licence holder’s actual qualified review process. Health Canada’s guide explains applicable packaging and labelling requirements and states that it does not pre-approve cannabis packages or labels. An internal proof record is not regulator approval. Health Canada packaging and labelling guide.
Confirm permission for third-party images, wording and other protected material. CIPO distinguishes copyright ownership and permission to use works; use the actual rights and agreement rather than assuming that possession of a file settles them. CIPO copyright guidance.
Cannabis, nicotine-vape and other materials require their own product and jurisdiction review. No artwork or shop setting establishes eligibility.
Hypothetical example: the proof changed after review
A fictional reviewer accepts version A of an asset for its stated use. A later supplier proof changes the unit wording and introduces a different image.
The release owner identifies version B as changed, asks the appropriate reviewers to check those differences and records the actual outcome. They do not forward version A’s approval as if it automatically covers version B.
The supplier then acknowledges the identified released version. This hypothetical handoff certifies no product or label and describes no real production order.
Keep shop and supplier copies understandable
Compare the approved asset with the relevant product record and customer view. Do not let decorative wording obscure which item or unit the customer selects.
Use the product-claims guide when a designation or statement needs source evidence. The brand-touchpoint guide handles supported shop presentation after the factual decision.
If an authorized catalogue edit is needed, accept its full scope: current edit access also permits customer-account and wallet changes. Separate supplier tools need their own access and approval route.
Reopen material changes rather than carrying approval forward
Record which changed facts, assets or uses require another review. Give independent copies an owner; changing a shop image does not replace a supplier’s earlier file automatically.
Choose DROPS when approved product presentation should connect with the actual catalogue and order experience. Explore DROPS.ST and the shop demos. Bring a fictional item record and two proof versions, identify the differences and name who must approve the version that would actually be used.