I disagree, mitchell. I think a CYOA (Cover your own ass) statement would say, "By entering you are granting the limited right for DAZ to make use of your image for such-and-such specific purpose." Maybe their lawyers were the ones who put it in, and it's just intended to protect them in every case, and they would never use the massively unrestricted rights you're granting them. The problem I have is not that they need to protect themselves, it's that a clause should always be as specifically stated as possible. Because that clause is not specific, and there is no indemnity on DAZ' part that I am aware of (Meaning that DAZ isn't giving you anything in return), that statement actually does the opposite of protecting them. It runs the risk of invalidating the contract. Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, so if you're that worried about it, go ask one. That's just my "best guess" after reading any number of articles about contract law for the games/music/entertainment industries.