Wow - what a discussion. It makes me feel that I need to comment, and I'd like to start doing so by mentioning a parallel case. A Danish News-service was successfully brought to court by the Danish Association of Newspaper Publishers. The case concerned exactly the same thing we discuss here: Deep links. The news-service operated on a subscriber basis, providing a search service, which gave the customers a direct access to those pages in the newspapers sites which had their interest. It is important to be aware that the service only linked to public pages of the newspapers, not subscriber-only. The newspapers on their side demanded that the news service be prohbibted from posting any deep links to their news sites as it potentially decreased advertising revenue. The newspapers won the case with the argument that the newsservice was making money through their deep links. If the newsservice had been free of charge, the deep linking would, by implication, have been OK. However, this was not specifically stated. At the same time, a ruling in an American court has established that, according to American copyright law, deep linking is OK. This ruling concerned two businesses, Ticketmaster and Ticket.com. The former contended that Ticket.com was doing something illegal by deep linking to Ticketmasters site, but they lost the case. These are the links to the Danish case: http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,51887,00.html http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/776542.asp#BODY and to the Travelmaster case: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35306,00.html It seems clear from these two rulings that deep links to other webpages are definitely OK if you are not making money on the venture. It might even be OK if you are running a business. Now to our Dutch webpage: What he is doing is essentially deep links. He is not claiming copyright. He clearly states the name of the provider in most cases. The only place I can see a problem is on the texture pages, where the origin can be a bit unclear. He could have asked if the linking was OK, but he is, by all indications, not doing anything illegal. There is another aspect of this deep-link discussion, which is of much more principal nature, and that concerns the very nature of free information on the internet. I have in this post used 3 deep links. If you glance through this forum, you will find almost exclusively deep links. I daresay that if I had asked for a model of a mailbox, someone would most likely have answered me with a deep link. If deep links become illegal, we can only link to the main page of any site, and information will slowly grind to a halt. Now that is a worrysome prospect in my not so very humble opinion. Those of you, who are miffed about your models appearing on the dutch site or are afraid of your bandwidth, write to the guy and ask him to remove them. Judging from the character of the site, he will most probably be happy to comply. But unless you specifically state in your pages that deep links are not acceptable, I cannot see any infringement issues in this business at all.