"I think it was a very cool idea and I love people that are creative, so if I can be the first "real" person and the first "celebrity" that a morph is based on" hardly. a little high on yourself there - you missed that by at least a couple of decades. one of the problems here is that too many people are in awe that the 'great ms. anna marie goddard' descended from heaven to reply to this post and state their disapproval of the license -- their incessant drooling over you and their excitement of having a 'real live' playboy model here in the forum is obstructing their thinking. theyre missing the point entirely. its a rediculous license agreement. if i created a morph and texture that looked exactly like you, and put it in freestuff tomorrow, theres nothing on earth that you could do about it... even if i named it 'anna-marie'. you cannot copyright a 'likeness' or the way a person looks, nor a common firstname - therefore it makes the entire license issue laughable. seeing as anyone can create a morph and texture that looks like you quite easily, yet NOONE on earth is going to mistake that 3D likeness for you, its a silly license thats very restrictive. and what scares me even more is that a license like this will serve as a precedent for other licenses like it in the future. THATS what disturbs me, and thats why im speaking out here right now. nothing against you personally, anna-marie. and how on earth do you intend to enforce this? i suppose youll want the complicity of the renderosity moderators and administrators to police the galleries and remove any images that you dont find 'pretty' and unoffensive? jesus.. they have their hands full already. there was a huge uproar last year when one of our ex-merchants, after having sold several hundred of a texture, changed her license agreement. any images created with the product had to be visibly credited to her and may only be posted under the username that appears on her buyers list of the product, and noone else. suffice to say she lost a very large amount of her buyers and an equal amount of respect over her stance on that issue, just as you stand to lose a lot of buyers with such a restrictive license (although its nowhere near as bad as hers). if i were in your shoes (which im not, i dont wear high heels), then i would revise the license to VERY strictly limit the use of your NAME - which you have every right to do. as for the model and texture - i wouldnt lose sleep over that. there are people out there who - as im sure you know - can create fake pornography quite easily by editing your photos in photoshop and end up with a far more realistic result.. i doubt theyre going to run out and buy poser and daz's likeness of you to struggle at the same. cheers, -gabriel