Caleb made a mistake. He says he thought he was clarifying the standard license, but in fact he just confused it. If you buy his products, you can, and I assume always could, use them in commercial renderings, animations and any other format where the models can not be extracted. I think he isn't particularly articulate and others here have either continued to misunderstand his clarifications or have just been ignoring them and stoking the fires. The restrictions are the same for his products as all the others under the standard Renderosity License. You can do what you like with them, commercially or not, but can not redistribute the meshes, or include them in a medium where they could be extracted. Whether that is fuily what he intended originally, I don't know, but he's been making it clear that that is how it stands now, so what the heck? On a side note, some have stated they would have no problem having their models used in video games. For most users, models with in a game may not be extractable. However, some games do offer SDKs to the public or even polished editors. In such a case, it is very possible that the model could be extracted from with in the game and then used gratis by others. In such a case, it would fall under unacceptable use in the standard Renderosity License, because it would be extractable. If a game maker wanted to use a model under such a situation, they should contact the model author and explain the situaton and attempt to gain additional license for the game. Some may offer it for free, others may ask for compensation or even flatly refuse. It's their right to decide whether or not to extend rights.