Fancy King Collection More KS BS

[jerichoholic]

This guy is selling rainbow decks made from many decks, including other Kickstarter decks, I think all creators should look in to it. He's not creating anything new, which is against KS rules, and is using other people's work to try and make a quick buck.

[JacksonRobinson]

I don't know how I feel about him using my cards in the project just yet so I will hold of on commenting about that.

But in terms of making something new, he absolutely is. He took a idea and made it realized. He is doing nothing that is breaking KS guidelines. Heck you could have even done this, but alas you didn't have the idea and the idea is sometimes worth as much as the execution of the idea.

[Cbkimble]

I have to disagree Jackson. This has been done before just not on KS. theoneeyedjack.com did this same thing with their used decks. This is the exact same thing only with, hopefully, unused decks. The only difference is this project want to create a new tuck.

[MagikFingerz]

Definitely not new. Magic Makers made a "rainbow" deck ages ago - http://playingcards.wikidot.com/bicycle:rainbow-deck

[HudsonDesign]

I don't know how I feel about him using my cards in the project just yet so I will hold of on commenting about that.

But in terms of making something new, he absolutely is. He took a idea and made it realized. He is doing nothing that is breaking KS guidelines. Heck you could have even done this, but alas you didn't have the idea and the idea is sometimes worth as much as the execution of the idea.

Just the fact that your not sure about him using your cards shows you, as an artist, have some form of reservation in him using your art for his project.

At a guess, if it was me, I would at least have expected to be asked first. But whats worse in my mind is he is specifically using your art, your name, to sell his own project. Otherwise why bother mentioning the specific decks, a couple of which are yours Jackson.

Not to mention their logo looks like a direct ripp off of Tripp Sikes logo, right down to the raised eyebrow.

It all seems in pretty poor taste. From start to finish.

And in the end, I could completely understand if designers had no problems with it. But the fact your already not sure tells loads. And if it was me, there is no way I would be happy about it if I had not been asked first.....

Its a shame. I thought the first deck was in the right direction of a good idea, just not really finished properly. But now I have no respect whatsoever for this creator....

[rousselle]

Definitely not new. Magic Makers made a "rainbow" deck ages ago - http://playingcards.wikidot.com/bicycle:rainbow-deck

The Magic Makers version was all USPCC decks, and clearly it was done with permission. It's actually a fascinating deck, as rainbow decks go (it's also certainly not the first), but yes, they *did* clear it with the owner of the art -- lucky them, USPCC was the owner of all of the art.

[HudsonDesign]

Definitely not new. Magic Makers made a "rainbow" deck ages ago - http://playingcards.wikidot.com/bicycle:rainbow-deck

The Magic Makers version was all USPCC decks, and clearly it was done with permission. It's actually a fascinating deck, as rainbow decks go (it's also certainly not the first), but yes, they *did* clear it with the owner of the art -- lucky them, USPCC was the owner of all of the art.

Yeah I think as an artist this would be the big hurdle for me.

There is little worse than being taken advantage of as an artist, and just asking costs nothing at all. Where as law suits later can cost a pretty penny as one or two "creators" found out recently.

But I think worse is the "bad look" in the community. It can be a clicky group. And if your just going to blatantly seem like your ripping off people left and right your likely to get shut down pretty quick IMO.

Also why such a low goal I guess. Not actually much to get made. Very little chance of not funding.....

[Talisman]

Gotta be crazy to back this one. Not for me.

[Marcus]

Technically, he is creating something new here. The tuck is his own design and has not been produced yet. Technically. New idea? Not really, but I don't think that the idea needs to be unique for Kickstarter to approve it.

But yes, doing this does come across as riding the coat tails of successful designers which is unfortunate. He could at least have reached out to the designers in question out of respect before doing this.

[zero]

I would have to disagree with you also Jackson.

Personally, in my own opinion, I believe that people pay good money for the exclusivity of your playing cards and that they have a certain expectation, pride and respect in your art and work.

To allow someone to use your art and work without even asking and with such crass disregard (I don't recall seeing any credit to which decks used anywhere on his kickstarter page) is like telling people and your backers "I don't care about my artwork".

I think you should defend your art and work to the bone just as much as people value and prize your decks. Yes, it is your choice whether to allow or disallow a person to use your art and work but to do so without them even asking or giving credit? What does that say about your art and work?

[Marcus]

Jackson didn't give any kind of approval in his earlier post as far as I can see, so to call in question his respect for his art, work or backers seem a bit unfair. The exclusivity is still the same, as in how many decks were printed. This project here only differs from all the decks hitting Ebay in that these are being opened and spread out as separate cards along with others instead of being sold as full decks.

I'm not sure about the legal ground to do much about it as he is not reprinting any of the artwork, he is simply taking a bunch of cards he already owns, re-distribute them and box them up for sale. Should the creator have given proper credit? Yes, in my opinion I do believe so. (In fact, I feel that he shouldn't have done this at all, but that's beside the point now.) Should he have asked for permission? There's really no permission to give from what I can see. He could've talked with the designers in question to get their blessing, but that's more of an ethical question.

(I'd probably be wise to point out that the above is written by me as a regular forum member, not as a KW representative.)

[zero]

Marcus,

The problem here is not that someone is reselling single cards from a handful of different decks. The reselling of opened decks, single cards, rainbow decks or any combination thereof on ebay has been done before and is of course, legitimate. The owner can do whatever he/she sees fit with their purchased deck of cards.

It's when someone repackages those cards and claims ownership of the finished product without consent and without credit. Those are two very different things.

I can buy a 6 pack of coke, a 6 pack of sprite, a 6 pack of dr pepper, a 6 pack of pepsi, a 6 pack of big red and a 6 pack sierra mist and sell them on ebay, individually or in any kind of combination i see fit. However, as soon as I create a new 6 pack packaging with my own brand and company name with a combination of those 6 soft drinks inside, without consent and without credit I promise you I will be hearing from lawyers or the very least a cease and desist notice.

The guy is pretty much saying, I don't need to seek you out, I don't need to tell you and I'm not going to give credit. I'm going to re-box this with my brand, my name and make money off your collective works. No company in the world would allow this and neither should they.

[Justin O.]

Jackson didn't give any kind of approval in his earlier post as far as I can see, so to call in question his respect for his art, work or backers seem a bit unfair. The exclusivity is still the same, as in how many decks were printed. This project here only differs from all the decks hitting Ebay in that these are being opened and spread out as separate cards along with others instead of being sold as full decks.
I'm not sure about the legal ground to do much about it as he is not reprinting any of the artwork, he is simply taking a bunch of cards he already owns, re-distribute them and box them up for sale. Should the creator have given proper credit? Yes, in my opinion I do believe so. (In fact, I feel that he shouldn't have done this at all, but that's beside the point now.) Should he have asked for permission? There's really no permission to give from what I can see. He could've talked with the designers in question to get their blessing, but that's more of an ethical question.

You're just a KW rep spouting your bias!! Shame on you!

(I'd probably be wise to point out that the above is written by me as a regular forum member, not as a KW representative.)

Ohmybad.

Marcus,
The problem here is not that someone is reselling single cards from a handful of different decks. The reselling of opened decks, single cards, rainbow decks or any combination thereof on ebay has been done before and is of course, legitimate. The owner can do whatever he/she sees fit with their purchased deck of cards.
It's when someone repackages those cards and claims ownership of the finished product without consent and without credit. Those are two very different things.
I can buy a 6 pack of coke, a 6 pack of sprite, a 6 pack of dr pepper, a 6 pack of pepsi, a 6 pack of big red and a 6 pack sierra mist and sell them on ebay, individually or in any kind of combination i see fit. However, as soon as I create a new 6 pack packaging with my own brand and company name with a combination of those 6 soft drinks inside, without consent and without credit I promise you I will be hearing from lawyers or the very least a cease and desist notice.
The guy is pretty much saying, I don't need to seek you out, I don't need to tell you and I'm not going to give credit. I'm going to re-box this with my brand, my name and make money off your collective works. No company in the world would allow this and neither should they.

I don't understand where your position on this comes from, you aren't a creator who's work is being used here, it doesn't cheapen the work of creators you like in any way, and it doesn't decrease the value of the decks that you own. I don't know that this project creator is going about his idea in the best way, but I think you are more invested than seems understandable to me as just a collector.

Show me on the tuck box where the mean project creator touched you...

[zero]

Justin,

It's ok that you don't understand. We still accept your input here ..

You got me Justin, you've figured it all out. I'm a corporate agent sent by the multinational playing card conglomerate S.A.R.C.A.S.M (Secret Agent Representative Cardists Against Subversive Merchants) in the name of......protecting intellectual property.

You are free to think however you wish, and no I am not one of the creators of the decks in which his project had included however I don't need to be to have apathy and understanding of the issue at hand (past tense because the project is now cancelled).

Would you not agree with my soda analogy, that companies and artists alike would protect their products in such a way and rightly so?

Let's put it another way, if I take a deck of Gatorbacks and make an entirely new tuck box design with my brand, my company and my name. Place the entire Gatornacks deck in my new box design and sell it without permission or credit to David Blaine, how do you think that would pan out? The only difference here is that he was picking through several different decks.

I'm arguing this point as a matter of principal and ethics bordering on legality.

[Cbkimble]

Let's put it another way, if I take a deck of Gatorbacks and make an entirely new tuck box design with my brand, my company and my name. Place the entire Gatornacks deck in my new box design and sell it without permission or credit to David Blaine, how do you think that would pan out? The only difference here is that he was picking through several different decks.

That's a very good argument. Exactly what I was thinking about the project.

[Justin O.]

Justin,
It's ok that you don't understand. We still accept your input here ..
You got me Justin, you've figured it all out. I'm a corporate agent sent by the multinational playing card conglomerate S.A.R.C.A.S.M (Secret Agent Representative Cardists Against Subversive Merchants) in the name of......protecting intellectual property.
You are free to think however you wish, and no I am not one of the creators of the decks in which his project had included however I don't need to be to have apathy and understanding of the issue at hand (past tense because the project is now cancelled).
Would you not agree with my soda analogy, that companies and artists alike would protect their products in such a way and rightly so?
Let's put it another way, if I take a deck of Gatorbacks and make an entirely new tuck box design with my brand, my company and my name. Place the entire Gatornacks deck in my new box design and sell it without permission or credit to David Blaine, how do you think that would pan out? The only difference here is that he was picking through several different decks.
I'm arguing this point as a matter of principal and ethics bordering on legality.

Cute acronyms aside, I don't agree with you taking a position, regardless of the position. In your soda analogy I think that it would be up the the soda companies to decide if they needed to take action or not, as well as with the Gatorback analogy that decision is left to David Blaine, even on here one of the creators of a deck being used, arguably one of the more rare and valuable decks out of the lot, doesn't even know whether or not he is bothered by this project.
I'm not saying the project creator is right, I'm just questioning whether you get the be the arbiter of ethics in a situation you aren't a part of on either side as a consumer, to get invested in the situation to the point that you are telling a creator that his position is saying "I don't care about my artwork" and to question the integrity of his livelyhood by asking "What does that say about your art and work?", I don't agree with the degree of investment you are demonstrating.

[Cbkimble]

Cute acronyms aside, I don't agree with you taking a position, regardless of the position. In your soda analogy I think that it would be up the the soda companies to decide if they needed to take action or not, as well as with the Gatorback analogy that decision is left to David Blaine, even on here one of the creators of a deck being used, arguably one of the more rare and valuable decks out of the lot, doesn't even know whether or not he is bothered by this project.
I'm not saying the project creator is right, I'm just questioning whether you get the be the arbiter of ethics in a situation you aren't a part of on either side as a consumer, to get invested in the situation to the point that you are telling a creator that his position is saying "I don't care about my artwork" and to question the integrity of his livelyhood by asking "What does that say about your art and work?", I don't agree with the degree of investment you are demonstrating.

Isn't that part of what this forum is for? We all have our opinions and are free to voice them. While we may not always agree with each other's views or the way we make our comments, it's still what this forum is about. We can/will make assumptions and disagree with each other.

You're telling zero that they have no right to voice their opinion when they have every right. Please try to keep that in mind.

[Mike Ratledge]

"Project Cancelled" - somebody put a nail in his coffin...

I was "dancing on the razor's edge" on this one: it's clearly a new idea in as far as the tuck, but it's also clearly not his work that he was selling - it was other people's designs - without permission.

I suppose the IP rights ruled? These days when somebody files a DMCA "takedown" request, you really don't have much - if any - choice unless you want to lose your shorts.

(not really, but it will get his attention) Opinion of our best legal mind, please?

[UtterFool]

Cute acronyms aside, I don't agree with you taking a position, regardless of the position. In your soda analogy I think that it would be up the the soda companies to decide if they needed to take action or not, as well as with the Gatorback analogy that decision is left to David Blaine, even on here one of the creators of a deck being used, arguably one of the more rare and valuable decks out of the lot, doesn't even know whether or not he is bothered by this project.
I'm not saying the project creator is right, I'm just questioning whether you get the be the arbiter of ethics in a situation you aren't a part of on either side as a consumer, to get invested in the situation to the point that you are telling a creator that his position is saying "I don't care about my artwork" and to question the integrity of his livelyhood by asking "What does that say about your art and work?", I don't agree with the degree of investment you are demonstrating.

I don't agree with this opinion Justin.
Your argument is (as I boiled it down) "If you don't have any part in something you shouldn't have or at least express your opinion on it."

I feel the major flaw in your argument is that the majority of opinions, in fact perhaps the point of opinion is that you don't have any "Skin in the game" yet you have something to say about a topic.

I have never committed Murder or myself been murdered , however I have the opinion that murder (in most circumstances) is bad.
If a forum post on murder would start up I may (if I felt like it) post my opinion on murder , why I feel it is bad, and in what circumstances I am for it.

I could go on about how that is a large part the point of bulletin boards and why Newspapers (raise your hand if you remember what a newspaper is) still have editorial sections.

So ... thereyougo. My two cents.

[Gareth]

I find this an interesting discussion - especially because it appears to be trending in the opposite direction to my thoughts. In some ways it is immaterial now, as the project has been cancelled, but I find it interesting, and maybe of assistance to others. Firstly, let me try to write my thoughts down.

In the Gatorback example(/strawman) above, why can't I sell a deck of Gatorbacks in another tuckbox? Sure, I need to make it clear that's what I'm doing - and value will be judged accordingly. Where I think most of the difficulty lies is that if I'm selling my alternate tuckbox Gatorbacks, I've got to acknowledge that they're not my work/design but that of David Blaine (or Stutzman's), but that leaves the possibility of this being mistaken for his consent/approval of the item.

I'm wondering at which point in the following sequence do you consider that it becomes bad?

1. Can I sell a deck that I've bought from a well known designer (all cards & tuckbox)?
2. Can I sell one card from the deck? (Single swap collectors do this all the time)
3. Can I sell multiple individual cards from multiple decks? (Also reasonably common in single swap world)
4. Can I sell the same items above and call them 'Bob's Collection of Popular Cards' (or whatever)?
5. Can I do the above, but place them in a tuckbox with the name I've called them?

I can understand Jackson or any other designer having some reservations with their design - but realistically with the individual cards they've already been paid for - being used in a way different from what they expected, but at what point can they control what we do with them after we've brought them?

Say I wanted to put some of my favorite cards on a matte black background and frame it - if sometime later I decided to sell it, do I need to approach all the designers for permission?

[JacksonRobinson]

This is only my opinion but the game changes when a single collector trying to sell a single card, deck or even collection. But in the case of this project it is on a much bigger more public scale. Imagine if this project consisted of nothing but Bycicle cards with a new tuck box that wasn't Bycicle. I assure you that the USPCC's legal team would be sure to look into it. It is almost impossible to protect your trademark with every case that comes up like this the sad fact of things like trademarks are, with every situation that passes without the artist protecting their work it makes the trademark or ability to safeguard their work in the future even harder. Im not accusing this project of this and never did only posed the question of what other designers thought.

Also back to the collector comment a collector is not selling a new product they are only reselling an existing product. That would be the same if I bought a Toyota and then sold the Toyota in a year. This project (imo) is like me buying a Toyota, ford and a Chevy, then changing out the hood emblems and then turning around and creating a new car company and selling those three cars and now calling them Jacksonmobiles.

[sinjin7]

I didn't even realize there was such an interesting discussion going in this thread. I initially saw this when Victor first posted this thread last Friday and checked out the KS project. I saw that it was just a poorly conceived random variation of a rainbow deck and immediately lost all interest and didn't pay any more attention to this thread. Then I saw today that this thread reached a second page and it piqued my curiosity because I thought to myself, "With a project this crappy, what in the world could people be talking about to cause this thread to reach a second page?"

The 3 primary issues I see here are freedom of personal use, legal copyright issues, and the designer's role in this situation.
For the most part, I think zero and HudsonDesign are correct with their analyses.

So first of all, if I buy a deck of cards, I can pretty much do whatever the hell I want with it...to a degree. I paid good money for them and I own them now, so I can use the cards, trade the cards, give away the cards, burn the cards, or even sell the cards if I want to. If I took 13 different decks and mixed them up to make 13 unique rainbow decks, so what? Its a free country (at least here in the United States). If this guy puts these rainbow decks in an unmarked tuck box and sold them that way, he's still within his rights.

But the moment this guy makes his own custom tuck box and takes credit for these rainbow decks as his own creation and attempts to sell a large quantity of his decks to the public, it becomes commercial in nature and he is in fact infringing upon the other deck designer's copyrights. Whenever any deck designer creates his own deck of custom playing cards, he is automatically granted a copyright to his works under the laws of the United States. With that copyright comes a set of exclusive rights (I'm not going to get into a legal explanation of specific exceptions to these rights because they're not applicable in this discussion and frankly, really boring) and deck designers can exercise his/her rights to prevent the unauthorized use, display, or sale (among other things) of their works. The only way the Fancy Kings Collection could've worked is for them to have gotten permission from each of the artists of the decks included in the Fancy King rainbow deck to use their cards, or more likely to have paid a license fee for the use of the artist's copyrighted works. Apparently this was not done and is probably the reason why this project got shut down, even though it technically reached its low funding goal.

So what is a deck designer to do? He can scour the internet for any and all infringements of his copyrights and exhaustively protect his intellectual property rights. But that takes up much time, effort, and a lot of money (lawyers aren't cheap, am I right? ) so sometimes they have to just pick and choose their battles.

So let's take Jackson, for example. He invests significant amounts of time, talent, and resources in his works and he produces exceptional decks of playing cards. Then Jackson sees a KS campaign like Fancy King with a dinky $600.00 funding goal that's going to produce a maximum of 51 rainbow decks, but it happens to include a couple of his fine decks. Jackson can certainly get his lawyer to write an intimidating demand letter containing terms of his licensing fee agreement for the procurement of his permission for the use of his decks in their project. But that's just going to cost Jackson several hundreds of dollars and its likely to merely result in Fancy King shutting down their KS campaign at no cost to themselves and they slink away. Or Jackson can be amused, flattered, or indifferent about Fancy King using his decks as part of their rainbow decks. If Jackson concludes this particular infringement of his copyright is just too small potatoes to take action, it is in no way a reflection of a lack of pride or indifference towards his considerable artwork, but rather a function of the practical realities of having to pick and choose his battles.

I think it also goes without saying that you don't have to be a deck designer in order to take a position, or have an opinion, in this matter. Everyone, whether right or wrong, has the right to chime in with their opinions.

[Mike Ratledge]

So what is a deck designer to do? He can scour the internet for any and all infringements of his copyrights and exhaustively protect his intellectual property rights. But that takes up much time, effort, and a lot of money (lawyers aren't cheap, am I right? ) so sometimes they have to just pick and choose their battles.

Thanks, John! I knew you would have an enlightened position, especially where jurisprudence is involved. IANAL as I have stated before, but it was pretty easy to see that the IP rights weren't even being addressed, much less satisfied in order for this to have been looked at as a legitimate adventure.

[billdragon]

I am assuming he owns a lot of decks and now wants to sell them. But he couldn't. So he made it in to a rainbow deck to resell it on ks for money.
anything that goes below 2000-4000k in funding goal in my opinion, is not to be trust in Playing cards. (because even 4k goal line projects contains high potential of copied artworks, and i see it happens, as he appears once every month. cough cough.)

stuff like this if put on ebay, ok whatever. mix and match of your own card collection and sell.

but by putting it in a new tuck. He is claiming the establishment of his own brand through other work in which case he copied more than 60 percent of
the original creator's works.( which is considered copyright violation)

besides, cards with different backs can't be played on proper poker tables or magic shows. eventually its a 1 shot pony.

good idea though, but it seems like its not original as stated by previous posts here

[jerichoholic]

Not sure if it was mentioned but he is now supposedly giving them away for free on a Gofundme with people just having to pay shipping costs. This makes me a little weary because I don't think Gofundme has any guarantees that he must deliver the goods. Seems like he's looking for charity now more than anything. Can't believe 2 people pledged $100 each!

Anyone for freebies? https://www.gofundme.com/fancyking

[jerichoholic]

I find this an interesting discussion - especially because it appears to be trending in the opposite direction to my thoughts. In some ways it is immaterial now, as the project has been cancelled, but I find it interesting, and maybe of assistance to others. Firstly, let me try to write my thoughts down.

In the Gatorback example(/strawman) above, why can't I sell a deck of Gatorbacks in another tuckbox? Sure, I need to make it clear that's what I'm doing - and value will be judged accordingly. Where I think most of the difficulty lies is that if I'm selling my alternate tuckbox Gatorbacks, I've got to acknowledge that they're not my work/design but that of David Blaine (or Stutzman's), but that leaves the possibility of this being mistaken for his consent/approval of the item.

I'm wondering at which point in the following sequence do you consider that it becomes bad?

1. Can I sell a deck that I've bought from a well known designer (all cards & tuckbox)?
2. Can I sell one card from the deck? (Single swap collectors do this all the time)
3. Can I sell multiple individual cards from multiple decks? (Also reasonably common in single swap world)
4. Can I sell the same items above and call them 'Bob's Collection of Popular Cards' (or whatever)?
5. Can I do the above, but place them in a tuckbox with the name I've called them?

I can understand Jackson or any other designer having some reservations with their design - but realistically with the individual cards they've already been paid for - being used in a way different from what they expected, but at what point can they control what we do with them after we've brought them?

Say I wanted to put some of my favorite cards on a matte black background and frame it - if sometime later I decided to sell it, do I need to approach all the designers for permission?

All valid points but is it reasonable to use Kickstarter for such a venture? After all he isn't creating the cards or the artwork, just a tuck case. I also find it funny that he claims the price was reasonable, especially since he compared it to a $40 Lennart Green deck AND dvd set. That set is worth it because it's a deck, and a dvd, and had 2 reputable magicians behind it, I don't remember who the second was. His cannot be compared to that version in terms of value. Though I will say his obviously has a lot more collectable cards in it.

I can't believe somebody in his project asked if he would be redesigning and reprinting the cards. Obviously they didn't bother to read anything or watch the video and don't seem to understand the legal implications of doing what they asked, lol.

[Justin O.]

By calling it a rainbow deck isn't he setting the expectation that he is not the designer of the cards?

[sinjin7]

First of all, not everyone knows what a rainbow deck is. Secondly, he's packaging it as his brand of rainbow deck. Thirdly, he's selling a certain volume of these decks to the public on a commercial platform like KS. Finally, its precisely because he's not the designer of the cards that he has to first get permission from the actual designers to use their copyrighted works. Sometimes there's a lot of gray areas for intellectual property rights, but in this particular instance, I think its pretty clear he's infringing on other artists' copyrighted material by creating his company to sell his Fancy King deck on Kickstarter using other artists' works without their consent.

[Justin O.]

First of all, not everyone knows what a rainbow deck is. Secondly, he's packaging it as his brand of rainbow deck. Thirdly, he's selling a certain volume of these decks to the public on a commercial platform like KS. Finally, its precisely because he's not the designer of the cards that he has to first get permission from the actual designers to use their copyrighted works. Sometimes there's a lot of gray areas for intellectual property rights, but in this particular instance, I think its pretty clear he's infringing on other artists' copyrighted material by creating his company to sell his Fancy King deck on Kickstarter using other artists' works without their consent.

I would argue that it's not his responsibility to make sure that everyone knows what a rainbow deck is, that it IS his brand of rainbow deck, since no one has made this rainbow deck before, and that Kickstarter isn't a commercial platform, it's a creative platform people misconceive as being commercial.

For the record I don't agree with the project creator, nor do I believe that he should profit from this idea, and fully expected to see it fail like it has. But I do believe in arguing for the sake of pursuing a deeper understanding of the core principles at play in any situation.

[sinjin7]

Well, the core principle at play here is that it is always appropriate to either get permission, or pay a license, when using someone else's copyrighted materials, not whether the onus is on the seller or buyer to know what a rainbow deck is. As for Kickstarter, it may have been conceived as a creative platform, but it was always commercial in nature - bottom line is that people use it to sell their wares and for KS to make money off of that. And now it is increasingly used by companies already in existence (not startups) as a de facto online storefront to utilize the built in advertising and marketing reach of KS. And KS is completely OK with that because. . .wait for it. . . it makes them money (seems like the definition of commercial to me). The true misconception is to view KS as solely a creative platform.