There are thousands of third-party products out there that have been created by Poser content developers. These products are made using DAZ's joint parameter information. If they didn't use that same information, the clothing would not work properly on the DAZ figures. DAZ hasn't laid claim to this content, making the answers to your first two questions pretty clear. The emphasised portion is actually not quite true. It just means that DAZ hasn't decided to pursue these people yet (or, at least, "not to our knowledge" for the conspiracy fans grin). Besides which, the problem is that the DAZ clarifications do not specify clearly our "obligations" to DAZ as far as these "derivative" products are concerned. This is something people tend to overlook. Yes, we are allowed to use their data, but under what conditions. I highly doubt it is as simple as "as long as the product is not a figure". I can also answer a third one. In order to fit a morphed character, you have a couple of solutions. You can use The Tailor, which DAZ sells (so we know that's OK), or you can hand-modify your clothing in a modeling app to fit the morphed model. Either way, you are using the DAZ figure as a reference to modify the clothing you made. However, because the geometry of your clothing is probably different than the geometry that DAZ created, you are not violating a copyright. DAZ has already answered that one in previous threads. Actually, not to dig up a dead topic but Lilin2 was "all original" geometry. So the "shape" of a figure (i.e. a morph) is obviously something that they classify as protected under their EULA. The problem I have is not HOW to do something, but under what conditions & obligations am I allowed to do it? As for the last question, I reserve comment out of respect for those whose feelings (both sides) were involved the first time around in the thread where your questions were raised. I will not be a part of rehashing that again. Sorry. No need to be sorry. While I am somewhat ticked at being ignored by them, I am not trying to "re-ignite" a flame-war. Quite the opposite. My aim is to get the clarifications (promised by Dan himself) to quell the ambiguities that start these arguments. In my opinion, the best option for them is to create a new "legalese" document as an extension/addendum to the EULA and have it available for download from their site. Keep the FAQ's and so on for letting people know their rights in "laymen's language", but also have a definitive text from which people can read their EXACT rights & obligations.