Stormrage, I think you've got me confused with someone else. I don't have any "fantastic" work up, just a few mediocre things. ^_~ Seriously, though, my point wasn't control over my art specifically. There's only one item in my downloads that's completely under my control and marked as "Personal use only" (the other two are derivative works I don't have the right to dictate either way), and that one will be changing to commercial use allowed when I get some time to work on my webpage. My point was that, although it sounds good, it's actually a rather poor argument. It seems to say "I have the right to control my art, but others don't have that same right." I don't think that's actually intended, but that's what it essentially gets down to if looked at from the other side. Here's an allegory I hope will be understandable to some. Say you (general you) made an image desktop wallpaper sized and placed it on a webpage, allowing it to be downloaded to be used as wallpaper personally or be included as part of a free desktop theme. As part of a theme, some of the unique elements can be taken from the image and made into icons or the like. Now, say someone took this image, took unique elements from it, animated them as a screensaver, and sold that. Would that make you mad? If not, then we simply have different opinions and I'm happy to agree to disagree. But if it would make you mad, please explain the difference to me, because I do not see it where I sit. Please understand that I have nothing against those who simply don't download or else immediately delete "personal use only" freebies. I think that's a very mature and responsible attitude. And I'd like to offer great thanks to the many who are respectful to both sides of the argument, even when they disagree. My problem is the very few who show such blatant disdain for those freebie providers, to the point of personal insults and cursing. Those who do have restrictions have their own reasons for it, and that deserves respect even with disagreement.