I can't speak for US law, but in the UK copyright violations are fought over and judged on "proveable loss of earnings" as well as utilisation of owned materials. While free items are often in violation of trade and industry copyrights they are rarely pursued unless blatanty utilising materials owned by someone else because there is no profit involved - either for the perpetrator or for the pursuant. If however profit is being made then by all that's hairy in the legal world you'd better have permission from whomeever owns the copyright/license to sell anything based on that, whether it's a movie vehicle/person or a prop based on something. If the shape and image and name of Lambourghini is copyrighted/licensed then yes, you should by rights have permission of the copyright/license holder to redistribute and make money from THEIR copyrighted/licensed product. If I make a character of the Queen of England and sell her in the store here I would either have to make sure that I had permission from the Palace authorities or sleep very lightly waiting for the men in ill-fitting suits to come knocking on my door - especially if she happened to look through the galleries and see what usually happens to women here. Daz textures are allegedly being used in free stuff and perhaps the store (however unwittingly), id they can prove a loss of earnings as a result of this regardless of whether their texture/whatever was better or worse than the contested item they have a legal case. Copyright is no longer based on percentage, but profit gain/loss and hasn't been percentage based for some time. For instance, a few years ago you could photocopy 10% of an article/book/whatever and be safe in the knowledge that you were inside the copyright laws. That changed in the UK last year, which means it probably changed in the US several years before. Whatever the reasons, DAZ lose money however miniscule that amount may be and their materials are being employed in a fashion that goes against their terms of agreement for usage. In all honesty, the terms and conditions are more important than the actual copyright. AFAIK DAZ do not give permission for any of their materials in whole or in part to be redistributed in any form. That is the issue. Not whether DAZ are being draconian in their methods or picking holes because of little similarities. No permision to redistribute, seems pretty simple to me. I also don't see that there's an issue whether someone told DAZ or whether they discovered it themselves. How many people here would prefer to be told if someone found their stuff being "illegally" redistributed without permission? I've seen some threads here exploring that very event. To be quite frank, most of us are hobbyists. Unless some of the people in this thread have a basic grounding in law we are all just shooting the breeze. If you want to know the answers to the questions fielded in this thread, seek proper legal advice. Any fool can come in here and make glorified statements about "personal experience" (heck I just did) but as far as I know most of us are not trained in law or legal interpretation or in the maze of copyright legislation. In all honesty, and in closing, I would have thought that supporting DAZ would be better than interrogating them. But then I'm weird anyway, what do I know?