Cooler, With all due respect, there are several fallacies with your statement. First, a merchant is an end-user. As one cannot download a "development" edition of a V3 download separately from the "normal end user" edition - both users agree to the same contract. To provide a clear couterpoint to your argument, the Poser 5 EULA explicitly states what can and cannot be done with the "Restrictied Content" that comes as part of the application. Their doesn't appear confusing to me, and plenty of people who are not merchants or content developers have agreed to that. Hell, this exact problem is due (from what I can see) to an inconsistency between what the EULA states and public action taken by DAZ. Second, while that quote is most definitely on the DAZ webpage, it is under the question title "How do I distribute add-on products for products that use INJ/REM pose files?" (I only found it by copy/pasting the first line into Google). As this is obviously NOT what the Lilin2 product was about (it is not an INJ/REM add-on product), it is reasonable to assume that Sixus1 Media would NOT have read it. Last but not least (and this is the one that affects ME directly), the FAQ page is not legally binding. If you have legal training (as I am led to believe you have by others), you know this as well as I. To me it does not matter whether or not you have said legal training, did or didn't know this, or are part of a grand conspiracy to rule the Poser marketplace (to go off the deep end). The fact remains, what really counts for us merchants is whether we can legally use said joint parameter data in our add-on products. Alot of Poser merchants cannot afford legal counsel, I can. And what they tell me is that until those "clarifications" of DAZ are actually reflected in a contract (the EULA or a legally binding addendum sent to the end-user), they mean nothing. Sorry to say cooler, regardless of past experience - this "clarification" of yours falls short of the mark. DAZ may not currently "intend" to sue add-on merchants for the use of their JP's. However, I cannot trust any company (be it DAZ, Sixus1 Media, or Walmart) to not consider every weapon at their disposal in eliminating competition. Currently the EULA is one such weapon. I am willing to be corrected, but until I see "legally binding" clarifications - I'm sticking to what keeps me safe: staying on the right side of the EULA as written and letting others who might not have the same access to legal counsel know why.