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. <<< I have read ALL the other replies. Your question, since you seemed to have forgotten it was -- "Second, the questions is whether or not the modeler has the right to tell an artist what they can and cannot do with something that they give away for free. There's no specified agreement on any rules." And the answer to that is copyright law. The fact that you apparently do not like the answer does not detract from its accuracy. >>>You're comments are again worthless, we're not talking about copyright.<<< Question after question in your message is answerable with two words, the two words you seem desperate to avoid for some reason -- COPYRIGHT LAW. What gives the creator the power to state how his creation can be used? COPYRIGHT LAW. You made the statement that -- "When they GIVE it away they also GIVE up rights to it." and In fact, it seems that to post it on a free download site you are forfeiting all legal rights if there's no copyright. I never thought this subget would generate so much stir. Anyone with an opinion please respond. You were and are wrong. Why? COPYRIGHT LAW. And the volumes of legal precedent supports the conclusion that you were and are wrong. You asked for opinions and Im giving mine. Sorry to force you into a hissy fit just because the truth does not conform to your bottom-line. >>> >>>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.<<<<<< And the same protections that apply to Mr. Clarkes book, apply to a mesh. I will ignore your ongoing insults as I have seen it many times in children when they are not getting their way. >>> >>>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?<<< Irrelevant. The right that you questioned that gives the creator of those objects you are coveting to decide how they may or may not be used is the right given them by copyright. Oh, and at least 5 of the last forty posts discussed and/or mentioned copyright. >>> >>>No, you were not.<<< Yes i was correct, if it weren't a grey area there wouldn't be so many replys.<<<<<< You stated earlier that the copyright issue has already been resolved. Which is it? Resolved or a grey area? So, the number of replies determines accuracy? Truth? Or would it be more accurate to assume that the vast majority of those here are artists, many of them very, very good artists who have little or no legal knowledge and have never believed that they might need to protect themselves against someone who believes -- When they GIVE it away they also GIVE up rights to it. >>>>>>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.<<<<<< You have a great deal of growing up to do, boy. This is only one of many posts that is evidence of that. Here is one principle to learn The number of replies is NOT directly proportional to the relevant truth. >>>>>>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.<<<<<< Thank you! Yes, they do. And the volume of their decisions in regards to the rights of the creator and his COPYRIGHT protections proves your assumptions and statements to be self-justifying, self-serving inaccuracies. The question is what is it you are trying to justify? >>>If you had bothered to read the posts you would see that they have ruled in the favor of both arguments on paralleled cases.<<< No. I saw opinions, respected opinions, from other members. There were no case rulings quoted. >>>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.<<< If Sharkey makes an object and says This may not be used for commercial purposes of any kind. Id say that is pretty damn cut and dried. Id say that that object is Sharkeys and if he doesnt want it used commercially then it doesnt get used commercially. Why? (Here comes that damn word you hate so much!) COPYRIGHT. Ethically, it would be theft if used contrary to Sharkeys expressed wishes. Period. And that IS the ONLY way it should be looked at. YOU obviously do not see it that way. For that reason alone, I am very glad we are on different wavelengths. And for that reason, you have also shown you are not worthy of further time. I only hope that the artists in this community keep wary eyes on you. SWOOOOOOSH! ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss PLONK!