The salient point.
Purchased product is typically for personal use.
Altering same and reuploading in another form is not 'personal use'' it is 'public communication' [redistribution] which is very often not covered by inherent copyright release on said purchase.
If you require specific clarification you can PM myself for a response.
You do realize that the example of 'publicly communicate' came from a site other than DAZ and was simply an example of an EULA/TOU that is very common on the internet about this subject? If you read it carefully you could probably pick out the name in it and google search to see where I got it from if you doubt my honesty.
Re earlier comments here by others...you asked a question and correct answers were given.
Nothing within them was 'rude', simply full explanation.
If a person perceives another persons words directed at themselves as eluding to their inferiority thus by communicating the other persons superiority, how would you characterize that? In the spur of the moment, rude seemed a fitting description. I suppose a slightly more accurate description might be condescending and belittling
I'm sure you have been trained in sexual harassment and racial discrimination in the workplace. It is as much the same concept. It's not what you say, or what you meant, it is how the other person perceives what you said. If you tell a slightly off color joke, you may not intend it to be racially discriminating, but if a person perceives it as such, your at fault.
All that said, Wincustomize.com reserves the right to determine what will or will not be accepted here for display/distribution.
Copyright Law can and is open to interpretation, particularly with such dispensations as 'fair use',[that which covers the example of a photo of another's statue], however only Stardock's 'interpretation' is relevant on Stardock's sites...
All that said, it would be very disappointing to spend hundreds of hours working on a project. Have all the correct rights/licenses of use, redistribution, and sale, meet all guidlines as outlined in the previous thread as well as this one, only to have it rejected because in Stardock's 'interpretation' of those licenses/rights, don't meet Stardock's 'interpretation' of what license/rights are.
The word 'interpretation' can mean anything. you could turn around and give the reason for rejection as 'those licenses must specifically state your name, address, and duration of license in seconds. It sounds rediculous but that could be your 'interpretation'.
I'm asking you to provide your 'interpretation' upfront, so that I can meet it's requirements at time of submission, not chase after it each time a little more is clarified with each rejection as to exactly what your 'interpretation' of a license/rights are.
"..however only Stardock's 'interpretation' is relevant on Stardock's sites." This could also mean, only those submissions from people who are good friends with someone doing the judging are deemed to meet your interpretation." I don't like chasing after the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Anyone who tries to tell me 'in our interpretation' there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow go try and get it" makes me questions the validity and reality of actually achieving what it is they say I can achieve, so long as it meets 'their interpretation of reality'