I remember when I first started looking into designing my own deck. I had bought the Artifice and Infinity decks earlier and examined them thoroughly. Later, when I was looking for ideas for a back design, I stumbled upon that image. I recognized it immediately as part of the Artifice back. This was about a year ago. I thought it was good to know that even paid designers used stock material in their designs.
I downloaded some of their designs from the same site as that image is taken, I think. I made sure to only take those who had a licence that allowed free commercial usage. That was also the case with that image above. The licence had a different wording then, as far as I can remember.
I thought then, that Lee used the stock image, altered it and made an awesome back design, using it. And he was perfectly in the clear with it.
It was some months later, when someone mentioned (re. some other deck,) stock images in a negative manner, that I understood that it is not generally accepted, or at least not liked, for artists to use stock images. I thought about posting that image to hear your opinion on that kind of usage, but I couldn't find it at the time, it was late, and I was tired. Then I forgot about it.
I think now, if I'm wrong about the licence change, that Lee have obtained rights to use it commercially. Or it could be the other way around, that image is a derivative from the Artifice back. Or, Lee designed it, and let that guy use a slightly altered version.
The Artifice back is still an awesome back design, stock or no stock.
I could be totally wrong about all this. Maybe deck collectors love stock design. Maybe Lee is the one running that site. Maybe the similarities is pure coincidence.
For me, personally, I have no problem with stock images on decks. In fact, If they look awesome like Artifice, I say: Bring em on!
(Read 1553 times)
