I think there is a real issue here about how wide the possible set is and how common any particular settings would be to achieve an end. For instance in programming it is NOT possible to patent or copywrite the most common or obvious ways to accomplish a task. So for instance I cannot copy right ... print "hello worldn"; No matter WHAT I try and do with it. It is simply to common and obvious to the task. So, for instance, the common concept of the globular liights, or say the curved backdrop is simply not something that can be copyrighted or patented (in a way that will stand up). So... it may be that the light set in question is simply to close to the optimal or common/obvious solution for those situations to stand up if challenged. A pose will be exactly the same thing. A model as a whole on the other hand represents usually a MUCH larger problem space. You couldn't copyright the mesh for a sphere, but you probably can for Victoria :) Now, an REALLY interesting thing here is the idea of a re-implementation. If I take Poser, open it up and make lights that look just like this set then I could legally distribute it - and it is irrelevant of the settings are the same. It is NOT legal for me to simply re-distribute someoen elses work. The concept is reverse engineering and "clean room" implementations. Feel free to check with your IP lawyer about it :) What I Am finding sort of odd is that Renderosity is more and more a website that seems to exist soley as a platform for the persecution complex of a select few. It would be nice to go a day or two without hearing certain menmbers accuse someoen of attacking them.