"...exactly =one= individual..." Which is whi I found the idea that such was the case here highly unlikely. Still, what happened once could happen again so suspicion and vigilance are fine, but accusing someone of being a "virtual" child pornographer right off the bat seems a little out of line to me. It occurred to me that in all the questions of what "legitimate", even or daresay even artistic use anyone might possibly have for such resources, there is one prominent example. It got a lot of press a few years ago when notorious child porn peddler Barnes & Noble was taken to court in Alabama and a couple of other southern states. So, just as so many here seem inspired to emulate the work of Vallejo, It would certainly seem legitimate that someone might want to emulate Sally Mann or Jock Sturges, both certified artistes--or at least not considered kiddy smut mongers by the Alabama legal system. Of course, they'd have to post in Copenhagen or maybe Mobile

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken