Phantast, I'd almost agree with you. This license is basically covered by copyright law. Clearly stating that both commercial and non-commercial images are ok is good and saves answering questions... and reiterates that it is their right to give such permissions. However, there are a lot of idiots out there who don't know what copyright law covers. I've had to go to court too many times because of publishers who thought they could take and mangle and use without paying. Would spelling it out prevent theft? Maybe. Among kids and the illiterate. At least they would know what was allowed and what was forbidden. I've had to talk to opposing lawyers and found them refreshing: rather than being assholes (to follow the jargon above), they usually understand the legal importance of each word... and don't let emotion or wishful thinking get in the way. Instead of rewriting the law, I'd rather refer to established law and know that the courts will accept those phrases as legally binding. People tend not to like legalese, but it exists for our protection, too. What I would choose to do for myself might not be serviceable for people who have had other experiences or who are in other markets or who are responsible for others. On a further note: I respect someone who speaks cautiously when representing a company. Chad or Steve or Dan can't breezily rewrite the law to please people who aren't lawyers: not when they have a company full of people whose livelihoods depend upon the laws as written and as decided in court for a couple of centuries. If someone has difficulty with an explanation, maybe they should judge by actions? Until the road to Draper resembles the entrance to Vlad Dracul's fortress, I'm not going to worry. Carolly