Sorry, we know similar questions exist but we are still unclear as whether or not the standard license covers us if the vector graphic being purchased is NOT the main value of a product being sold. We create worksheets that are sold in PDF form and the graphics we use only serve as support imagery for the main content.
The standard license says:
"Create products for resale where the main value of the product is the image itself. For example, you can’t use the asset to create a poster, t-shirt, or coffee mug that someone would buy specifically because of the image printed on it."
No one would be purchasing the worksheets we sale "specifically because of the image printed on it." but it still seems there is ambiguity here.
Here are examples of the worksheets we sell:
If you take the images out will people still buy it or does the product have the same value? If the answer is no, then you need an extended license.
Hi Brad. Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. In answer to your question, in many cases, yes, people would still purchase as many such worksheets without specific imagery exists and people purchase them. On the other hand of course the imagery adds overall value to the product but isn't the specific reason people are buying them. In this case, how does one determine added "value"? As design in any form would technically add value to the product even if it isn't the determining factor as to why one would choose to purchase.
Or is it just a case where we should stay away from stock imagery entirely? We have professional designers on our team who are currently creating imagery but it would of course dramatically improve our workflow if standard licensed stock is an option. If an extended license is required then we would be much better off creating all imagery ourselves.