I think they are nicely done for what they are. They are not pieces of art. Perhaps the original paintings that were used to generate these pieces are art, but these are more akin to the posters of paintings. I would think if someone wants nice images of great ball players they can buy a nice photographic book and have real images, which are preferable to me, at a lot cheaper price. I would never buy them and I think that somewhere on the piece there should be a disclaimer that they are not period pieces. Otherwise, some novice will be fooled.

I agree with this answer 100%
 

This seems to represent my views on the subject perfectly.

certainly am appropriate copyright date at the very least

I do the business for the Walter Johnson estate, and I'd say it's a good bet that these have all been done with no licensing from players, the estates of deceased players, or MLB. If so, it would say so somewhere on the cards. As someone else speculated, it's probably just too small a fish for anyone to go after. The legality of it is another matter altogether, and I can't see how they aren't in violation of trademark and copyright laws. As for the aesthetics, I've always liked the artwork and considered them attractive and nicely done. I have the two Johnson bottlecaps and was hoping they would actually do the beer bottles and six-packs for him as they did with the Babe. And they should definitely have the dates of production on them. We all know, and especially with the ones made to look worn and aged, that many of these will be sold, or attempted to be sold, as vintage cards forever down the road.