With all do respect to DAZ, especially to Mr. Dan Farr... DAZ always have a statement that .bla2 .. a derivative, .. ..bla2 of a product, therefor it can't.... bla2. I think we need more explaining from DAZ in every statements, concerning which one is ok or not. 1. Is the pose, posing characteristic okay or not. 2. Or the close UVmapping system to implement a texture is okay or not. 3. Is a mesh judged by the number of poly's or the shape and the geometry of the model it self.... (and if it is ... how?) 4. More importantly....... who make these rules ? Is the rule totally approved by the patent office or not. This basic stuffs can AVOID judicial probs and furthermore piracy of someone's model.... and more importantly, TO PROTECT the chance and the right of new modelers. Personally, if a model have a very close physical characteristic, but if it's made from scratch and the person can prove it, (maybe show the other party on how they begin the modelling, so FULL documentation is necessary) it have full rights. Since DAZ have been teh parents of poser modelling (for me it is), I, and the public need to know the legal prosecutions of every or at least some major DAZ cases or some formalities in the US patent office or Court. I can't let DAZ be another Bill "hell" Microsoap..... I have too much trust and love in DAZ products, and it's wide ranged products in 3D. And still I want this company to expand more than the current state. concerning, dees.......