Is that the true "legal" as in a "laws on the books" standpoint or someone's opinion of it? In my own interpretation of copyright law, a 3D model is nothing more than a piece of art like a painting or a song. If you change it...you get the idea. It's not programming code. Not at all. It is the same as a binary image becase the data in the file is actually just a description of points like the description of pixels in an image. It is not instructions like in a piece of software code. If you've ever decoded a 3D object it simply says "point 1 is at x:+25 y:-2 z:0" That isn't code anymore than "pixel1 is color r255 g128 b33" (which is how images are encoded). So, by using this example you could say that a 3d Model is fundamentally the same as an image file. They both describe the attributes of a single point / pixel. They both use 3 attributes to describe them and they both follow the same format. So, I ask you this: "How is a 3d model different from an image?" Answer:"Not at all". One other thing...You can't believe a software company about anything. Of course they would say that you can't do that because they don't want to lose the revenue. But wether it is actually "LEGAL" is a question only documented copyright law can decide...not a software rep. My advice is "Look it up" in the library of congress or a local law library. Never take anyone's "word on it" when it comes to legal questions...if you do you'll always get screwed.