I have a feeling were going to see this for some time to come. It hasnt been that long, after all, since we saw an entire line of textures pulled because someone else had "appropriated" them, modified them, and then put them up for sale. When pressed, the artist claimed he had made substantial changes and therefore had created a whole new piece of art, which, to a degree, he had. Were they new? Only to the same degree that a texture made from photos is "new". In another thread, pokeydots has demonstrated a WIP of a texture that is amazingly lifelike... as it should be, since it was created from photos. But that raises another somewhat thorny issue: they're not Pokeys photos. Theyre images taken off the Net. So how do we draw the line? Is using photos downloaded from the Net to create a texture any less a crime than starting from, say, Asia? Those photos are just as governed by copyright as a painted texture. After all, someone took them, even if the photographer isnt mentioned by name. Im not trying to create an atmosphere of complete paranoia, but I feel we do need to deal with this issue a little more deeply. Using a photo from the Net is just as much a copyright issue as using Asia for a starting point. Are we making allowances that verge ever so slightly on the hypocritical?