In the light of the above -- the usage of a photo in a wallpaper is a copyright violation?

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with such a point of view. If I don't wish a photo of mine to be used by a third party, i state so in a copyright notice. So far, none of the celebrities' pictures I've come upon in the midst of the Net had such a copyright notice anywhere near them.

IF I 'm not making money out of my work (wallpaper, collage, texture for a personal figure) I consider such usage to be a tribute to the celebrity rather than a copyright violation.

Having said that -- it appears that we can buy the FaceShop software, yet we cannot post picture we've produced with it, uless they show our own faces (in which case no othe rperosn can determine the actual likeness of the figure and the human being).

Should than Renderosity even sell the product?

Well, of course, 50% of the sales can change one's mind.

Should then the picture of Natalie Portman be on the cover of the FaceShop?

Should Arnold be used as an example?

The Leonardo's artwork should not also be used as an example. Let be strict and consequent in actions TO THE LETTER.

Don't forget about removing ALL the examples of the FaceShop usage from the Forums.

Changing the gallery suddenly became a very good option.

Good bye and good night.