Yes, there is. It is called copyright law. It is also known as the Berne Convention on International Copyright Protection or some equally noble sounding title. The United States and MOST of the civilized world belong to it.<<< We're not discussing copyright laws, so your argumentitive reply is without purpose. If you had bothered to read any of the other replys you would have seen the copyright issue has already been resolved. >>>No, they do not. Again, copyright law.<<< You're comments are again worthless, we're not talking about copyright. >>>Again, copyright law.<<< Again, not the issue. >>>Irrelevant.<<< You are once again wrong. >>>In case this has not been mentioned, copyright law gives them that right.<<< In case this has not been mentioned, copyright laws aren't the issue. >>>Arthur C. Clarke GIVES you a copy of his book. That doesn't mean you can produce a movie from it.<<< You see, cas, Arthur C. Clarkes book has what is called a copyright on it, thats why you can't make a movie about it. And you would be right, if you weren't wrong. You seem a bit slow so let me repeat myself, we aren't talking about copyright laws. >>>Read a book on copyright law. Or, at the very least, visit the linked site. It is not in lawyer-speak nor does it go into great depth, but it does shatter at least 10 of the greatest myths in regard to copyright.<<< Read the other replys. Or at least check out what the name of this thread is, objects and the "not for commercial use" statment. Now does the thread name mention anything about copyright laws? Besides your own , does the word "copyright" even show up in the last forty posts? >>>No, you were not.<<< Yes i was correct, if it weren't a grey area there wouldn't be so many replys. >>>No, you just do not appear to agree with that cut and dry answer.<<< I can't believe how many times you have been wrong. No it is not cut and dry. If it were, i repeat, there wouldn't be so many replys. >>>And that is where the problem looms. Even if we were to accept your argument that it was not "cut and dry" legally (Though it is), it is DEFINITELY cut and dry ethically. If you cannot see that then we are on different wavelengths completely. <<< I think you would agree the courts make the decisions. If you had bothered to read the posts you would see that they have ruled in the favor of both arguments on paralleled cases. As for ethically it is absolutly not cut and dry, there are so many ways to look at it. If you cannot see that then we are on different wavelengths completely.