From my personal perspective, especially seeing as this conversation is directly involving Blackhearted. My earlier comment stands. I'm not rescinding it. Now, not owning either light set and relying entirely on imagery and VS's report I think Blackhearted has a valid grievance. While I do not believe it is possible in any way shape or form to copyright the movement of a mouse, twist of a dial or position of a thing. The simple fact that there are so many similarities between so many items indicates with fairly condemning evidence that something is amiss. The odds of someone finding that exact combination over several different items in the same set at almost the same time is slim to virtually ridiculous. Now, if however only one or two lights were in question then I'd go with coincidence. Same with poses. As far as I'm concerned, you can't copyright the things simply because the human body only moves in certain ways so the chances of someone stumbling on that combination are higher, much higher when the size of the Poser userbase is considered. Lights are slightly different in that there is an almost infinite number of combinations that can be used, but I still don't accept they can be copyrighted and there is still a chance that I could create a light scene that is identical to one in the store. Once, perhaps twice. On that note, it is pretty condemning that something untoward has been done simply because there are far more similarities across multiple objects. In my opinion this would be equivelant to me purchasing a pose set and replicating it, because replication is evident here even if it can't be proven they're the same light set. Whether it's actionable is debateable because none of us - as far as I know - are copyright lawyers, but it's certainly ethically and morally questionable. I think Blackhearted has been right to pursue this to defend his store product from what can be termed blatant replication, but I doubt that he actually has a legal standing for action that will hold in court. Whatever the case actually is here. I am not defending bebop nor Blackhearted, I know neither of them well enough nor do I care much about either. It is grossly unfair for Blackhearted to have suffered this situation but it is also IMO a very grey area indeed as we are talking simply about the location of program devices limited by the program creators dealt with by dial positions created by the program writers. If anyone owns copyright to Poser lights, it's Curious Labs. But then, isn't that in itself a bit silly? Can any of us think of another 3D app that uses lights? Could blackhearted have a claim of copyright violation if a Lightwave user set up a light set that was like his? Can the writers of the first 3d program have an actionable claim against every manufacturer since then who has included lights in their application? This starts to get into the realms of ludicrous. Morally, ethically and intellectually (he perhaps thought of them first) Blackhearted is in the right, as I said earlier the evidence from VS is pretty condemning. Legally, I doubt he has much chance of achieving much. Personally I think that's rather fortunate or in the not so distant future a lot of people could be at each other's throats because of this sort of thing. Poses, cameras, lights, faces, characters cannot be copyrighted IMO. They are dial settings and while there are a vast number of settings available there are also a finite number of settings in the long term. The "chances" of similarity become slimmer because of the variety of combinations and imagination of people but grow with larger numbers of people. I guess all I'm saying is, before we all start screaming copyright violation we might want to think rationally about it. But, in no way does this devalue Blackhearted's claim of wrong doing, simply because it's more than one or two instances of chance. Many more instances. I agree in principle with Blackhearted's definition of his copyright. Where it is claimed across multiple lights, multiple colours with multiple dial settings, it's certainly intellectually protected because he thought of them. I uphold the claim that someone could possibly replicate one of those scene sets by accident, but not all of them. I think, looking at the images of the lights I could replicate them relatively easily. However, I'm not convinced at all that I would stumble on those precise dial settings on so many lights in several different scene sets at the same time. That stretches even my generous believability. And that's the last word from me on this subject.