Pendarian said, "This discussion actually shouldn't even exist because it is a moot point" I have to disagree completely with that statement, simply because I believe that ANY discussion that makes people THINK about the free stuff they download is worth having. There are always plenty new members arriving here who are unaware of past discussions on this (and plenty other) subjects. Not only that, people can change their opinions by reading intelligent arguments on both sides of any question. Or are we all so fixed in our ideas that nothing will ever change our minds? Apart from that, as a Freestuff creator AND user, I personally feel that the creator of this item made a big mistake in imposing restricrtions on the use of it. If he/she had said something like "I would prefer that it NOT be used for erotica, torture scenes, etc, and if you downloaded this, please try to respect my wishes", it might have had a more positive effect. As it is, he/she has created a situation that is actually inciting some (IMO irresponsible) people to go AGAINST the restrictions. Whether this is enforcable or not seems to me to be beside the point. I won't even say it's a stupid restriction, because if someone puts it in their readme, then I must respect the fact that they obviously feel very strongly about not being associated with that type of image. The point is, would this person ever TRY to enforce it? Probably not, I reckon. And nothing I've seen in the semi-legal opinions above has convinced me that it would stand up in a court. As someone asked above, "Has ANYONE ever been sued over this kind of thing?" Anyway, all that is beside the point too. The question is this. Would you, knowing that it can't be enforced, deliberately use the item for an image you know the creator would hate, after he/she went to the trouble of making it and giving it to you for nothing? Or would you go look for an alternative, or make your own? I would like to think that the majority of people in this community would say 'No' to the first question and 'Yes' to the second. In other words, it's a simple matter of respect for people's generosity and their wishes. It just might have sounded less intrusive if it WAS a wish and not a restriction. I mean, if you bought a Donny Osmond album (LOL - I hope you never did!) and it required you to attend a Mormon service every time you listened to it, you might think twice before you went to an Osmonds concert! mac