Differences between use of stock assets standard and extended in written D&D products
I have a query regarding the use of Adobe stock assets, whether or not using them as designations rather than the full product itself is fulfilled by having just a standard license.
I am about to publish a Dungeons and Dragons written module, which currently utilises extended licensed assets from stock (images), as these contribute to the overall appearance and feel of the document (and hence potential marketability). However, I wish to use part of a standard asset as part of a label indicating the system it is designed for (which whilst informative to the purchaser, is not specifically part of the 'product' that the document represents and thus does not contribute to the 'quality' of the finished product)
My question is this: do *all* stock assets in such a document need to have extended licenses, or only those which provide demonstratable value to the final product (as opposed to being used merely for information purposes?)
