UnitedCardists.com - The forum for Cardistry, Magic, Custom Decks and All Things Playing Cards.

Actually went in on these. I'm a sucker for art decks. The fact that this is branded and based off one of my favorite childhood movies.

In like Flynn.

Sher. where were the pics? am I the only one that does a full listing hehehehehe. Updated OP

Lol sorry Pierre, I was on my mobile. Meant to add it in later. Thanks for adding it in.

Sher I could never be mad at you was just teasing a bit it's all good

I kinda like this, but a few things are holding be back from pledging. Don't like the random text banners on the courts, and border+frame on the back design does the same as overly thick borders - take away space from the art. Also the Bicycle brand doesn't fit on this IMO, the title of the "book" (ie deck) should be in its place.

I like these and am in for a few.

My issue is, considering how USPCC balked at the Alice in Wonderland decks and won't print them even if they are public domain, how will they act with this rather blatant take on Disney art? I'd bet dollars to donuts the lawyers at USPCC will shoot this down fast unless Nat comes up with licensing approval.

MagikFingerz wrote:I kinda like this, but a few things are holding be back from pledging. Don't like the random text banners on the courts, and border+frame on the back design does the same as overly thick borders - take away space from the art. Also the Bicycle brand doesn't fit on this IMO, the title of the "book" (ie deck) should be in its place.

Naw, the text banner complements the deck. He went with a wave split. Most of the time its straight across or at a diagonal split. Nothing wrong with these cards. Only the masses will tell.

chach wrote:My issue is, considering how USPCC balked at the Alice in Wonderland decks and won't print them even if they are public domain, how will they act with this rather blatant take on Disney art? I'd bet dollars to donuts the lawyers at USPCC will shoot this down fast unless Nat comes up with licensing approval.

I'm sure Nat has all his ducks in a row. He's had several successful projects. I don't look for any problems with this.

I told myself I was never going to buy from Nat Iwata again if he pulls off something similar to his previous decks. I think this is a nice change. I'm in! Hopefully no delays with this one.

Great artwork but I would bet USPCC won't print. To this day, even Disney pays royalities to the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London for use of Peter Pan. The reason is because the author granted all rights to the hospital as a means to raise funds for the hospital. Though the copyright would've expired back in 1987 or so... the UK government (as well as the European Union) extended the copyright indefinitely for this special case.

Thats my concern as well. Its always a grey area with these famous movies that are already in the public domain. Established designer or not, anyone could well be taken down. Love the art, but ill hang on to my money for now.

I sent Nat a message regarding this. I'll let you all know if he responds. Maybe he'll come here to post. I think he has an account here.

Hey folks, just wanted to jump in on the discussion. First off, USPCC has seen and approved the tuck and is looking at the cards for any needed changes. I have tried to take the necessary steps to ensure that I am only using quotes and character descriptions directly from the original book "Peter and Wendy" which is in the public domain. I take issue with the statement that my work is a "blatant take on Disney art." There will of course be similarities since they are both based on the same book, but I am taking my cues from the book's description, NOT Disney, and trying to keep my character designs different from theirs.

Also, Disney only pays royalties to GOSH because they are using elements from the play and later book based on the play. Disney does not, however, pay royalties on other Tinkerbell movies which are derived from the oringinal book and not the play.

It is a source of concern that I am very aware of and trying to be in the know about. I'll keep everyone posted.

Thanks for your response, Nat. It's very much appreciated.

NOPE

I have said it before, but I will no longer subsidize decks where the creator asks me to subsidize other backers.
I.E. Campaigns where there is a pledge that gives away materials of much greater value. Such as the $1 everything tier.

Kickstarter is not meant to be a contest. I am fine with EB specials where a group gets a deck for a dollar or two cheaper than people who come into a campaign late.
But having the $1 (or whatever ridiculously low price ) for one or two people makes it a contest and makes the other backers have to pay for those couple of backers.

I disagree with it and apart from only one or two designers will not back a campaign that does it

I don't see the $1 pledge as other backers having to pay for that tier. I see it as the creator giving away some of his product and incurring the loss himself. In a run of 2,500 there will be extra left over, and I see this as him giving them decks from those extras for free, instead of earning additional profit by selling it.

Anyway, even looking at it from your perspective, that $1 tier is worth $27. Two backers means a total $54. With the cost split between the current 293 backers (though I'm sure the number of backers will increase), each backer would have to pay... 18 cents.

hapaninja wrote:Hey folks, just wanted to jump in on the discussion. First off, USPCC has seen and approved the tuck and is looking at the cards for any needed changes. I have tried to take the necessary steps to ensure that I am only using quotes and character descriptions directly from the original book "Peter and Wendy" which is in the public domain. I take issue with the statement that my work is a "blatant take on Disney art." There will of course be similarities since they are both based on the same book, but I am taking my cues from the book's description, NOT Disney, and trying to keep my character designs different from theirs.

Also, Disney only pays royalties to GOSH because they are using elements from the play and later book based on the play. Disney does not, however, pay royalties on other Tinkerbell movies which are derived from the oringinal book and not the play.

It is a source of concern that I am very aware of and trying to be in the know about. I'll keep everyone posted.

Nice to have you join the group. The artwork is great and you seem to be knowledgeable about the copyright laws surrounding Peter Pan... so that's a good thing. It looks like your project is off to a great start.

Looks good, but there's just something funny about Peter Pan's non-sword arm that I just can't put my finger on.

Geez- you're one day late to the party and everyone on this forum already says every word out of your mouth. So I agree with many here- I don't usually like this style of art on decks but I like this one. I don't like the useless text on the courts and lastly I really like the back design.

I don't understand why put text in the design of playing cards. From a marketing point of view, cards have a big advantage: an international market. So voluntarily give up all the non-English speaking world seems to be a bad idea for me. And, even without that, generally speaking, text doesn't add anything good to the design...

That being said, I'm a backer of this deck!

SuicideKing wrote:I don't understand why put text in the design of playing cards. From a marketing point of view, cards have a big advantage: an international market. So voluntarily give up all the non-English speaking world seems to be a bad idea for me. And, even without that, generally speaking, text doesn't add anything good to the design...

This. Unless the cards contain something that desperately need a label to explain who or what is depicted, it adds NOTHING. And banners only serve to take space away from the artwork and provide the artist with easy ways to mirror the court cards (although this deck has a straight line in the style of the frame doing that anyway).

In regards to the $1 rewards, it is definitely not a case of other backers subsidizing those. In any well run/planned Kickstarter campaign there is at least some money left over that goes into the creator's pocket to try and cover the hours and hours of time he puts into running the campaign, doing the artwork and handling shipping. I am giving up money that would otherwise be my own in order to do these rewards. The same is true for the $5 early backer specials, those are being given at cost, or less than cost in some cases, but from the start I've liked to both give people an incentive to get in on the deck early and add more decks later if they so choose, plus I just like being able to save a few people some of their money.

If I was finishing the campaign without a penny to spare, and would have to RAISE the funding amount by $54 in order to print the cards, that would be what backers subsidizing other backers in a way. Even then, one person getting a discount does not mean I'm overcharging someone who pays the regular price. I have never been of the "someone else's success equals my failure," and I try to live accordingly. That means helping other card creators get on their feet, giving advice, cross promoting, celebrating other's successes, etc..

Anyway, I'd never want someone backing anything they're uncomfortable with, to each his own.

Just wanted to let you all know that I have received confirmation from USPCC's legal department that they will print the deck with the existing art and use of the property. So, no problems there, and I'm free to move forward with their support as the printer and Bicycle branding.

Thanks.

hapaninja wrote:In regards to the $1 rewards, it is definitely not a case of other backers subsidizing those. In any well run/planned Kickstarter campaign there is at least some money left over that goes into the creator's pocket to try and cover the hours and hours of time he puts into running the campaign, doing the artwork and handling shipping. I am giving up money that would otherwise be my own in order to do these rewards.

Thanks for the explanation, Nat. I thought that was the case. Also, congratulations on getting your art approved.

@UtterFool - Everyone is doing a $1 tier. It's a fad. It started with that Dale guy and his mechanical cards. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/da ... s?ref=card I do like his $27 tier which is the chosen one $1 tier. Get one Limited to keep. One Unlimited to play, and look a coin for me to keep. I don't see any T-shirts. He is running a tight ship. I think T-shirts are a fad.

Aussie888 wrote:Looks good, but there's just something funny about Peter Pan's non-sword arm that I just can't put my finger on.

@Aussie888 - Are you suggesting Peter Pan has a glory hole behind the ribbon and has a finger up Tinker-bell's butt. Behold, the power of subliminal messaging. Sorry, I could not pass that up.
@hapaninja - I think use should keep the text and the ribbon. After all, the text is from the book. It helps your case down the road if there is one. I like that your tuck box looks like a book. I don't know if anyone has done that before. It makes me want to look and see.

@MagikFingerz - Your right again. That little piece of rope makes it a "straight line in the style" It's not a wave line in style like i thought. You're good. Thank-you...

Actually, I believe I was the first to do a $1 tier with my Steampunk Pirate deck, which was before the metal cards, so you can all blame me for starting the fad.

hapaninja wrote:Actually, I believe I was the first to do a $1 tier with my Steampunk Pirate deck, which was before the metal cards, so you can all blame me for starting the fad.

Your fault, all your fault. You ahould be ashamed. Lmao.