Extract: "Last but not least (and this is the one that affects ME directly), the FAQ page is not legally binding." Comment: After reading this, I contacted my contract law person, and she was quite specific, pointing to established case law and Federal and Utah court rulings and established that yes, indeed, those FAQs are legally binding, and it is quite apparent they are intended to be so. It is not part of the EULA, true, but that does not make them any less binding. Statements of position on contractual clauses are admissible and arguable in favor of either party in civil cases. Especially in Utah. Indeed, even now, the AG's of both Utah and Arizona are working together using specifics such as this to sieze a trust believed to be mismanaged. She was guessing, however, as to the jurisdiction, not having a copy of the EULA readily available to reference the jurisdiction for it. In short, you are wrong on this point. ANd experts you have spoken to need to familiarize themselves with the laws of the locality of jurisdiction -- laws which are not uniform across the U.S. Furthermore, you seem to have read more into cooler's statement than is present. Nowhere in it does this person imply or state that merchants are not end users. Indeed, as such, they are equally tapped. Cooler does not make a distinction between the groups, and, indeed, goes to extra lengths to establish that there is not one. Extract: "Cooler then how do you explain other figures able to accept V3 and V2 maps that are not rte-encoded?" Comment: Answered well before the question was asked. Extract: "Anyone who is shocked and awed by cooler's post should really think about what was offered in the Lilin2 figure... V3-compatibility. So the similar shape, and copied JP's are kinda required." Comment: Given that, apparently, the figure is trademarked, that similar a shape as indicated in the post is a breech. Trademark, as I am constantly reminded, is a separate area from copyright with much tighter restrictions and tougher tests. I did not find it distracting, either -- the thread drift was consistently leaning into the area of IP issues, and that puts them to rest quickly. Extract: "note the fact that not one has disagreed with my hypothesis that one cannot legally create & distribute "derivative" products (such as clothing content)." Comment: Incorrect. It was specifically pointed out earlier that the license terms have a hole, and that hole is intentional. Clothing can be made from a figure. Figures can be made from clothing. The license is very specific about like content for the type of content it is. Clothing cannot be made from clothing. Figures cannot be made from figures. That would not agree directly with your assertion. Sit back for a bit, as well, and take a couple deep breaths. This company, to my jaundiced and out of the mainstream eye has enjoyed great success not because the figure is free, and not because the figure is particularly compelling, but because the people who have purchased it have made additional materials for it. That is the only reason this character continues to succeed -- the goods that make people the most interested are available only for it. Therefore, by ceasing to complain about a license that cannot be changed retroactively, and is highly unlikely to be changed in the future to any degree except perhaps to be more limiting, and putting this effort into the creation of a separate product, and providing the same support for that product achieved by the current one, you will achieve your ends in a better manner than this one. If everyone made their own figures, they would be reduced to the level of commodity within the community, and dilute the effective dominance of the present one. Unless, of course, you have additional motivations beyond changing the terms of EULA. Perhaps you are attempting to build interest and support for this new P6 figure you mention. Unlikely, granted, but something to consider. Lastly: Extract: "The fact remains, what really counts for us merchants is whether we can legally use said joint parameter data in our add-on products." Comment: Under the terms of the EULA: Yes, if the product is not competitive with the source of those JPs (i.e. Clothing from a figure CR2). No, if the product is competitive with the source of those JPs (a figure from a figure cr2). Has anyone ever noticed that we never really miss having leap day?