I'm not a lawyer, but itgenerally seems to me that it's likely that if a merchant provided a seperate license, and the Renderosity license ws included and agreed to by the merchant as verified by the upload process, then, any place the two conflicted, the point more beneficial to the consumer wuold take precedence. In other words, if I include in a seperate licence that the product may be handed-down and that you additionally have to mark 'Dodger' visibly on any render with the product, then the former would be true, as it grants an extra right to the consumer, but the latter would not as the Renderosity licence grants a more liberal usage. However, if the second licence granted certain rights in return for certain restrictions, then the user would be bound by the Renderosity licence unless he or she chose to take advantage of the additional rights granted by the secondary licence, at which point the second licence would take hold as a result of an implicit agreement entered into by taking advantage of the special considerations granted by the second licence. In such a case, the aforemeentioned licence would be worded slightly differently, but the idea would be that at such time that the item was 'handed-me-downed', the new recipient would have to include the word 'Dodger' visibly on each render in return for having a licence to use the content transferred to them, but the initial owner wuld never need to do so as they could operate solely under teh Renderosity licence until they handed the item down to someone else, an act which would call the second licence into effect.