While I understand the legalities involved, I don't think there is anything pernicious in the request for source files. Forcing the client to come back to you is called "entanglement," and it's one of the more nasty MBA inventions of recent years. Having used something of yours, possibly as part of a branding process, they must now continue to work with you in order to keep that element of their corporate look current. If you drop out of the business, they are screwed. If you (or your company) jack your prices through the roof, they are stuck. Savvy customers ask for photo negatives and pay extra for them if necessary. Wise clients buy the source code, not just the executable. I insist on layered formats we can manipulate as my deliverable for complex graphics, with text on a separate layer, so we can translate it. We would NEVER allow the creator of the original to control the translation process. I had to remove a Java animation from a major website I maintain, not because we couldn't modify it to make it suit our new wider page, but because when we had it done, ten years ago, all we got for our money was the jar files, which apparently are unopenable binaries (that's what our IT folks told me, anyway). Why should Poser be any different? If I were a business, I might well pay someone to come to my office, develop a PZ3 on MY machine with my Poser, pay her, and keep the scene. How is that different from having her work at home? As long as I own every product she uses, I'm not violating the intent of the EULA. Obviously there's a fuzzy border here somewhere. If someone sells me a marketing photo, I want the negative, but I don't demand contact information for the model (much as I might like to). But it seems to me that rejecting a request for the pz3 out of hand is a great way to retain your artistic virginity at the cost of your crass digestive system. Mick