Long time not been in the forum so late addition to this thread. 1) let me make it clear and I mean absolutely clear that I do not agree with placing such restrictive EULAs on an item. 2) many are missing the point that you do not have to dload this item, it is not restricting you doing anything outside the use of the item - so is it that hard to respect the creators wishes, you dont like the terms, dont use it. 3) for those of you who wish to try their POV out regarding not being able to enforce restrictions on 3d models (advised to reword this following section as it could have led to "issues")think of it in this way, Person A likes Company B's logo on their website(it is afterall a freely available graphic), decides it would fit in well with their imagerender, Company B a well known brandname doesnt like the way their companyproductimage is being depicted in such a publiccommercial way so thru gentle or hvy handed tactics forces Person A to remove said image. Been done before and will happen again and again as creator has the bias in all legal arguments where aproriate lic. info has been provided. Cases I am aware of are from the UK and USA, cannot comment on other world countries or regions. For individuals the case is likely that it would never go to court (at any serious level), and that a settlement would be enforced upon the renderer to abide by the creators restrictions or that a eg. hosting company would pull the image to avoid bad press etc. in all likelyhood both parties would end up lighter of pocket and hopefully wiser of loaf. As far as My lawyer said or my brother who goes to law school says (too much of that of late, common courtesy and sense go further and are a lot cheaper), I dont think matters. As far as I am aware and as anyone who has replied to this thread seems to be aware, there have been no major legal battles over this sort of thing before (either that or you all decided to keep it yourselves) and the above comments are only my IMHO, there have been cases related to illustration and 2D graphics work etc. and I think that you would find this sort of case lumped into the same kinda group. If it were it is likely to be treated in the same manner and the outcome would likely be as i predict. If however it is a 'landmark' case the penny could land on either side. This does bring up a serious ethics issue however and one perhaps the renderosity team should make clear which side they stand on. If 2 artists were in disagreement over this kind of issue in general where would renderosity stand - in support of the artists wishes or the renderers (I mean in terms of site admin (image in question - 'would it stay or would it go!') not in a legal sense, as I have a feeling Renderosity would do its best, sensibly to stay out of any disagreement which spilt into court) as mentioned just MHO, now go little children ride your pink ponies Legume off into your Cylorama sunsets Daz and render freely once more!