Quote - um, that's not the facts. that's his version of the facts.  DAZ banned him from their Artzone because of the proof supporting the accusation that he used one of their textures.  that is in addition to the tattoos.  and where he refers to the methods of using tattoo photos as for making actual tattoos.... that sounds really sketchy.  it used to read that he explicitly was using tattoo flash sites, as he did for real tattoos.  not many people seem to remember, but there was actual case law determining that you could copy music and movies and give it to your friends as long as you didn't sell it.  that was before digital media was common.  napster, for instance, was modeled exactly off of what was legal, and determined to be illegal.  downloading someone else's tattoo design and incorporating it into an image of which you're selling duplicates is way different than copying it by hand onto one person's skin.  

perhaps he's right, and perhaps there's no violation.  personally, i've seen some pretty definitive proof, but i'm no expert and this could be above reproach.  perhaps it's only rumors that the artists who made the tattoos issued complaints.  but i wouldn't say the "facts" are on the site of someone both DAZ and Renderosity have banned after an investigation.  that's a big stretch.

You're right and I appoligise.  I did think after I posted that I should have worded it a little differently, I was heading off to work and posted quickly.  My comment was basically a knee jerk reaction to stolen tattoos/lawers involved.  I am a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty and that there are indeed two sides to every story. 

My post was mearly meant to offer the OP the info that the textures were still available and to read the other side of the story and decide for himself whether or not to purchase.  I myself don't know more than snippets read in forums and the info on the artists site.

Kat