Sigh. I think the issue here is that staff keeps insisting that this is just to check links while others keep mentioning copyrighted materials. Frankly if you are opening any of the files to check them then you are implying that you have cleared them of copyright infringements to those who download them. If as staff keeps saying you are only checking links to prevent abuse then there would be no need to actually open a file. Knowing that staff will be opening files is an implicit guarantee. Furthermore no one can make a declaration of copyright infringement except the original creator - nor do you have the right to question the legality of the usage. Example (I've used before): When I released my package "Secret's of Victoria" at DAZ it was accepted, a few days after it's release I got a polite letter from Reva with a reminder to insure that trademarks were not violated, se did not accuse me of anything. Had she accused me of a violation that would have been a problem, had she pulled my product it would have been an unfair business practice resulting in the loss of sales. I had already contacted Victoria's Secret and received their ok on the product and was able to provide her with the name of my contact there in case she had any doubts. DAZ of course had no way of knowing that, but they also could not accuse me of wrong doing. Equally I see Winnie the Pooh and Jonathon Bowser work all over the place. These would seem like infringements of copyright. I don't however have the right to accuse anyone, I don't hold the copyright. In fact I do hold permission letters from Jonathon Bowser to use his work in specific types of web graphics - as do others. There is simply no way the free stuff mods can know all the copyright materials or who has permission to use what. I released a character a few years ago as a freebie using a re-worked free texture from Jade_NYC. I had her permission to do so but a free stuff mod here wouldn't know that. There are also now several body textures for sale and free where the end user has the right to create free or for sale textures with them. Now should the tester see half a dozen similar textures from different creators they will question the copyright when in fact these items are all legally licensed. Anton keeps talking about testing for copyright infringement to prevent the downloads from occuring from the start. But that won't work everytime, nor according to staff is it the intention of the "testing". Every item won't be checked so there will still be slip-ups and things will sneak through. My point to this is that Renderosity doesn't really have the right to make a copyright infringement "claim" on anyone's work. They may remove it when a complaint is filed with them while it is investigated but they must not "assume" that a violation has occured. It is often common practice to "Suspend" something immediately upon receipt of a copyright complaint. That is in the legalities at 3DA. We use the following: "Any artist believed to be in violation of Copyright laws will be given 15 days to prove ownership, during this time their items will be placed on hiatus. 3-D Arena and it's above mentioned affiliates may not be held responsible for any loss of revenues during this time. Either party in a copyright dispute may request an appeal within 7 days to prove that they do indeed hold the copyright to the item/s in question. A decision will be made by the administrators at 3-D Arena within 5 days of the appeal. This decision is final in regards to 3-D Arena, it is not a valid claim of ownership outside of this domain." Generally this system works.

3-D Arena | Instagram | Facebook

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo