Fair enough point, MC. The reselling of images of a clone is obviously something that's never been dealt with up until now. I'm not suggesting that everyone who buys AMG intends to somehow make money out of her. But it seems to me that as sar as she's concerned, it's the attachment of her name to the product that's offensive. But I agree that what she says in posts is not the law. The EULA is the 'law' at this point (always assuming it's enforcable). I reckon when DAZ approached her for this project and worked out the legal details, they weren't expecting such an uproar. Not good on their part. They should know the market by now. On the other hand, it's difficult to see who they could have gotten to do this with a less restrictive EULA. I still maintain that any public figure would have insisted on similar rights. Well, they're talking it over, so maybe something will change. Common sense would say something like 'You can't post or sell degrading images and tell people it's AMG' Um.... something like that. mac PS Kudos for having brought it up in the first place. To me, the biggest mistake DAZ made was not making this EULA extremely public information for anyone planning on buying it.