I'm not saying Staale is being greedy. I can TOTALLY understand people suing over someone taking something that have sold, and turning around and reselling it, and I can VERY MUCH understand people suing over someone taking something that they gave out for free and reselling it as is, I can even understand people suing over someone taking something they offered for free and changing it and reselling it. However what really gets my goat is people who offer something for free then want to charge you for certain uses like commercial. THAT is thre greed I was referring to, but then, that is another thread entirely. The textures in question do look somewhat recognizeable in the shadows and the lips, but I personally don't think they look close enough for the average joe to recognize, especially without close scrutiny. But Staale is definaly the best judge in this case, he knows his texture better than anyone. And of course sknox knows what he did or didn't do. However if I were the judge in this case, presented only with the evidence I've seen so far, I would have to say that the two images do not look similar enough for me to categorically say that this is a clear case of copyright infringement. I guess it's kind of like the trial of a certain ex-football player who has trademarked his name so I won't mention it (LOL). There just wasn't enough HARD evidence (according to the judge and jury, anyway) to convict. Then again, this is ONLY my PERSONAL opinion and I'm glad I don't have to be judge in this case as it is certainly a difficult one.