I honestly doubt either company would be hit with anything that got created by a pedophile for the purposes of cyber-porn. As it stands now, of course not... just like it would be hard for a fertilizer plant and a diesel oil supply plant in Oklahoma to be sued over what happened at the Murrah Federal Bldg. in 1995... seperately, the parts are made for ostensibly legal and perfectly normal means, ie: each has a perfectly peaceful and legal use, and were sold by each company for those obvious uses. Probaly a bad example, but it shall have to suffice :) Now, look at DAZ and (insert genital prop-maker here). Each can credibly claim on their own, in any court of law that they built their items for the purposes of harmless art, and as it sits now, no jury alive would ever disagree about their intended use. OTOH, when you combine the two, it gets harder and harder to justify the intentions of use, and easier for a lawyer to make his case against you. Besides: Right or wrong, logic isn't exactly a prevailing factor in most jury cases, but until we find a better way to do it, it is the jury that decides, no matter what method they base their decision on... If an ambulance chaser is looking to hang your company's collective wallet, why on Earth would you want to give him more rope to tie a noose with? Laff - I guess I just hang out around too many lawyers :) /P