While I agree that, just on the basis of the hand alone, DAZ has every right to ask that the Oddyssey texture be pulled (The broken fingernail is obvious, as are the folds of skin at the finger joints), I think we also have to be a little careful here. Overlaying the two images only proves that the second artist was good at following the road map of where the textures are supposed to go in order to work properly on the model. That's not a very good issue to raise, IMHO, because for any texture to work properly, it would have to be in the same positioning as the placement in the original V1 or V2 texture maps. Further, there is a point where it doesn't matter what the originating texture map's copyright status is if the artist has sufficiently altered it to make it his or her own piece of work. With the added detail that appears visible at this low-rez, DAZ would have to work pretty hard to prove copyright violation. Yes, the artist used the original Vicky texture as a base, but the changes are more than an alteration in colour and a few smudges; they're fairly wholesale. There's also a level of detail that's been added that shows that the original texture was used a starting point and that's all. Unfortunately, that's not sufficient for proving copyright violation, because the law these days leans on the side of the accused artist. We're long past the days when a minor change was grounds for allowing something to be treated as brand new, but the differences in the overall composition of this texture are sufficient that it would be treated as a new piece of creative work. All the artist would have to do to prove this would be to drag in any and all Vicky textures and show that, in their essence, they're all alike in one way or another. It may unethical. It may even be immoral, particularly when the artist is selling it. But, with the copyright laws written the way they are now (and granted, on the international level, they're a real botch job at the moment), it's not illegal.