I'm not maintaining that prices can't be low without triggering concerns. I'm all for low prices. If I had been more precise, and even more verbose than I am already, I should have said that an unduly low price without any clear reason for it might trigger concerns.   

Actually, a low-priced edition will probably trigger concerns anyway, even if the low price is explicable, though for different reasons than I mentioned previously. Because of the typical KS backer's strong preference for highly-limited editions and particular printers, the main avenues for achieving a lower price are pretty much closed off.   Jackson Robinson's Silver Arrow experience is a real object lesson: if he can't make a low-priced edition work on Kickstarter, who can?

As regards pricing, what the project costs is the producer's problem not the backers'. 

If the producer ends up with a price which is competitive with the pricing of comparable decks on Kickstarter, it will be of no concern to most backers how much profit the producer is making for himself (or not making for himself).

If the price is much lower than comparable decks, astute backers will be concerned that the producer hasn't done his homework, will eventually realize that he is going to lose money, and will abandon the project.   

If the price is significantly higher than comparable decks, then potential backers will take their money somewhere else.  There are plenty of Kickstarter decks, and most collectors are not so obsessive that they have to collect every deck. Their money will go further backing other decks.  The few collectors who are obsessive, and loaded with money, won't suffice to fund the project -- and anyway, even obsessive people can be aggravated  by an unreasonably high price.

So, my advice to this producer would be: set the pricing to be like the pricing of all the other successful Kickstarter projects.  If that means you can't do the project, then don't.  Probably you will be forced to take this advice in the end whether you want to or not, because the project won't fund if you don't.

I was the editor in chief of a big photography web site for a few years, and this is a fairly common situation.  It was not unusual for people posting photographs on our site to have them appropriated by other websites.

Many people either do not understand that photographs are copyrighted, or what that means; or they willfully choose to ignore these laws, thinking that the chances of there being any consequences are most likely remote. It makes no difference whether you call a photograph a "fan photo", and think you are doing the photographer a favor by giving him free advertising -- you simply cannot legally use a photograph which you do not own without the permission of the photographer.   Any more than you can just appropriate deck designs from artists without paying them for permission.

There is no doubt that what bluecrown.com did was a copyright violation, and if they were sued, they would not have a proverbial leg to stand on. The obnoxious response from Alex doesn't make it any more illegal, but it also makes plain that he is far more clueless or negilgent about his legal obligations than anybody doing business ought to be.  I would not trust such a person in anything more than a routine business transaction.  Since Blue Crown just appropriated the photogaph in this case, you have to wonder how many of the photographs on their website were appropriated without permission, justified in Alex's mind by the curious notion that he is giving "free advertising"  to "fans".

All that said, unfortunately it is rather difficult for photographers whose copyrights have been violated to do much about it in most cases.   In the United States, unless the copyright is registered, the courts will award you only "actual damages", as opposed to the far more substantial "statutory damages".   It is is doubtful that the photographer registered the copyright in this case, so he would have to prove the extent to which he was actually damaged.  Actual damages in this case would  probably equate to the fee that the copyright holder could reasonably have charged for the use of the photograph. This would almost certainly not be sufficient to cover attorney's fees in a copyright suit.   Even though it would be an easy case for an attorney, the fees would still be more than the damages recovered.    Many sharp operators count on this when they appropriate photographs which they don't own.

Incidentally, at this point, it seems that the photo has been taken down.  If it weren't, the photographer could use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to force it to be taken down.

Since Alex's response was arrogant and obnoxious, probably the best course is the one suggested by others in this thread: to stop doing business with Blue Crown.

Why should anyone feel a need to have their tastes or judgment validated by anyone else but themselves?

It isn't so much that I "feel a need" to have my tastes validated.  I don't buy decks with that as an aim.   I rarely buy decks that are already in demand (I generally can't get decks like that in my target price range anyway), and I don't buy decks based on how much I expect them to be in demand in the future.  I buy what I like.

But it is satisfying when decks I buy become sought after by other collectors.   Not financially rewarding, because I have never sold a deck and don't plan to start.   But psychologically rewarding.   I don['t get the impression that I'm weird in this respect (though anybody who collects playing cards has got to be a bit weird), and I think this is probably an element of collecting for a lot of collectors, irrespective of what is being collected.

I would argue that this is a rather limiting explaination. I consider myself a collecter, but a decks value is intrinsically important to me in the decks I add to my collection.

I agree that it is nice to have decks in one's collection which are prized and sought after by other collectors.  That is especially the case when you buy decks because you like them  and they subsequently increase in demand and value.  Not as a matter of speculation and profit, but as a kind of validation of your taste and judgement.   Personally, I almost never buy a deck for more than $10 (exclusive of shipping) or $13 (with shipping).   Some of them are worth quite a bit now, which I have to confess to taking pleasure from.  Many of the decks probably aren't worth any more than I spent on them, which is fine, since I still like them.

Rarest would imply ultra low production... and these days, since the rise of Legends Playing Card Co and Expert Playing Card Co, there are quite a lot of decks with short print runs of around 1000.

You probably mean "most difficult to get hold of" when you say rare... and so decks like Zenith (by Encarded) come to mind -- I've not seen one on eBay for ages.

A genuinely rare deck (as in very low production) is the gold/black private reserve Whispering Imps deck -- from what I remember, that had a crazy low print run of something like 150.

Rarity is irrelevant to value, as has been pointed out here many times.   I can get a "llimited" deck of my design printed in quantity 1 by MPC.  The only deck more "rare" than that is one that does not exist at all. But if I am the only person who wants that deck, it is close to worthless.   What *is* relevant is the demand for a deck versus the supply, like any other economic good.   A deck that everybody wants and nobody can get is extremely valuable.   A deck that nobody wants and nobody can get is less than worthless because it takes up space.  Eventually, it will be thrown away, increasing the "rarity" of the remaining examples, with no increase in their value.   Desiring a deck because it is "rare" is irrational.  Desiring a deck because a lot of *other* people desire it is not so irrational, especially if those other people can't get it, and you can.

This seems to be a point lost on a many collectors and sellers -- especially sellers on eBay.

If the timing in the month makes any difference to a person, that person is already spending far too much money on playing cards.

These are a little under-stated, don't you think?  The designer should kick it up a notch somehow.  A hologram on the tuck box would be
"a good add", for example.