Two cents: "A, B, C by someone else, X, Y, Z by me" = OK "A, B, C by someone else, X, Y, Z by me, now on sale at..." = not OK I make some of my own stuff, but lord knows it isn't saleable yet. So when I use my own stuff, of course I credit myself. I haven't gotten guff for it, 'cause it's not for sale. If I were to perfect it and offer it for sale, it would still be the same picture, with the same text - no one looking at it after that date would know anything had changed. So to me, that's really an important point - if they don't say it's for sale, no one just looking at it would know! Thus, it doesn't come off as a "commercial". That said, I am one thousand percent behind Grey Tower's desire not to see the galleries fill up with what are essentially advertisements. While some ads approach real art, that's not generally what they're about. Sixus1 shows the clear and obvious distinction between the two approaches. One is the combination of many elements to best effect as a total picture; the other is a sole focus on the key product. Indeed, for an ad you don't want too much "other stuff" distracting from your for-sale item. Admittedly, the line between "ad" and "art" can be blurred, absent promotional text like "available in MP" or "coming soon" or whatnot. If, indeed, the ad is artistic enough, what the hey, no one's going to complain if it stays in the main gallery. But yes, it is a value judgement from the mods, whom I don't envy. What might make the process seem a little less arbitrary is to distinguish a set of criteria, so that the mod can say, "Well, this picture seemed to violate principles 3, 6, and 7, therefore..." Just a few rambling thoughts.