Please, in the text above, there're 2 ways of understanding.
1- Where the main value is "The image itself" --- would it be the derivative work or the single asset purchased? Someone could buy the coffee mug because of my derivative artwork BUT the asset plays a minor role, secondary element and not important in the final composition.
IF the stock asset is not the main value in my final composition (print) : standard license?
(2) you may not incorporate a Work in to merchandise intended for sale or distribution, including on-demand products, unless (a) the Work has been modified to the extent that the new work, as incorporated into such merchandise, is not substantially similar to the Work and can qualify as an original work of authorship; or (b) the primary value of such merchandise does not lie with the Work itself;
I do not quite understand, what you try to say, but if you put an image on a mug, that image will be the main reason to prefer your mug against a similar mug without this image.
Look here for more information on licensing: https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock/links-for-licensing-terms/td-p/11366788
(Disclaimer: As always with licensing, this is my interpretation of the rules. I think they are correct and advice is based on reading and interpreting the licence terms and on fair use for both the buyer and the artist/stock company, but I cannot rule out that my interpretation is wrong. I'm not an Adobe employee).
If you put an image on a mug but that image is a new composition, photoshop made, brand new work using 30-40 stocks, the reason someone would buy the mug is because of my artwork not because of the adobe asset.
Example, a leaf, a smoke, grass, parts of a hair... stocks that plays a minor role should be standard license in my opinion. Purcharse 40 extended licence stocks in an artwork is impractical for a photomanipulator. I want to sell prints.
Like in freepik terms:
If I'm correct, that is even covered in the licensing terms somewhere. Out of memory: if you modify an asset, that it is sustantially a new work and not only derived work, you may use it as an own creation.
But don't nail me to this and don't argue with me, I'm just a user like you, who has a quite profound knowledge of the terms and the copyright law, but who is not a layer and has no formal training in law, even that I helped out my wife at the time during her training with her homework.
At the end of the day, and in the case of a lawsuit, which has a low probability to happen, the courts will decide if and how the copyright has been violated.
There won't be any participation in this discussion by Adobe, except pointing to the licencing terms and recommending to seek legal advice.
I will lock this thread now.