Help!! The license thing (CLOSED)

(will be more exciting than it sounds)

RH offers different licenses for uploaders: Personal Use Only Licenses, Extended Use Licenses and Extended Use Licenses (IP Restricted). The latter interests me right now.
This is intended for someone to create content without being the rights holder of the original IP (models from Nike, Hermes... something like that). This is accompanied by the so-called "Editorial Use Only Restriction", which states that (beyond private use) any commercial publications are prohibited and the non-commercial publications must additionally have "some cultural, editorial, journalistic, newsworthy, academic or educational value".
There are 3 points that are interesting for me.
1. How can it be that IP restricted-licensed products simply appar in the gallery, sometimes even directly linked to the product? Where do I misunderstand the license?
2. At the end of the license descriptions I found the hint if you still have unanswered questions, you should contact support. I did. There I received the (friendly worded) answer that s/he was not a lawyer and had no idea. And although formulated in a friendly way the answer sounded as if either the person was all alone in support or was not a person, but an artificial entity that *must* not answer profound questions.
And 3.: Can the license changes *after* the purchase? How binding is the information at the moment when you upload a product?
Would someone like to enlightenme? Or co-suppose? What licenses do you use when you upload something (and why)? Do you pay attention to the license when making purchases? 

And yes of course, very few of us will be copyright lawyers from Utah. But these are questions that you can think about even as a non-lawyer.

Important: I'm really interested in this. So if you've answered but don't see me again in the next few days I might have some trouble with a recurring reaptcha issue when logging in.

I am the real person who responded to your recent RenderHub Support message. The support agent who forwarded your message to me is also a real person.

With that said, my response remains the same.

While we are happy to point users to the applicable license and other published policies, neither RenderHub Support nor any other staff member can provide legal advice or offer legal interpretations regarding how those terms may apply to a particular situation. 

Ultimately, legal questions like these are best answered by a qualified attorney. While community members may share their opinions, it's important to read the license in full and make your own determination or consult with a legal professional for advice.

For your convenience, the RenderHub 3D Content Licensing Agreement can be found here:

https://www.renderhub.com/info/3d-content-licensing

Starting out with "IANAL" IP restrictions are civil matters, that is, if you use restricted IP in a manner the owner doesn't like, the owner can sue you.  The owner usually will not care either way as long as you are not making money from the use, because lawyers cost them money too.  

So as long as you are not using restricted IP in a way that makes you enough money for someone to come after you, you are fine.

If you post a picture in the gallery that contains restricted IP the same holds true, the worst that is going to happen is RenderHub gets a "Cease and Desist" order and takes it down.

The same thing for any other site you put it on.

Personal use does not mean you can't show your art to anybody, it just means you can't make money doing it.

This part:  "and the non-commercial publications must additionally have "some cultural, editorial, journalistic, newsworthy, academic or educational value"."

If you might notice are the same restrictions for adult art not to be called porn.  There is a reason for that

In most cases IP holders outside that don't mind seeing their logos in pictures, it's called product placement and anytime they can get that free they are quite pleased.

Thank you both for the quick response.I start from "below".@diogenese19348: When I first read the educational-cultural part, I thought it came from the standard exception "fair use" for (almost?) all copyright cases.You described a very pragmatic approach to such questions. Of course, this can also mean - this is basically meant, this is not a statement about you - that you always give in when in doubt. Like someone who apologises when you step on his foot (<- humorous exaggeration).So I suppose you don't look too closely at the license information, because in most cases it makes absolutely no difference. At first, I thought these 'cease and desist' warnings would cause (more) problems.
@RenderHub Admin 1
Thank you very much too! Perhaps  (I'm almost sure of this) there is a mistake somewhere in our communication. For me, sorry, your position as a representative of RH in this matter makes no sense at all:
RH published rules (ToS). Part of it ends explicitly by saying, "If you have any questions about this Agreement, including whether your planned use of a Digital Asset is covered by this Agreement, please Contact Us." This is clearly an offer to deal with a special individual case regarding a product (and its license).

But I didn't want that at all. I asked: What did you mean by this rule in general? And illustrated with an example why I thought I hadn't understood the rule in the first place.
Now your answer sounds to me like I asked some random guy on the street about it (<- humorous exaggeration): No neither I nor anybody else in OUR CORPORATION knows anything about **what OUR rules could mean**. Only lawyers can answer such questions! And the icing on the cake is the recurring link to the license information that I myself had quoted in my original question.
So I don't know where the mistake is, but we are certainly misunderstanding each other (as mentioned above). That's why I won't say anything more to you in this matter. Because I'm afraid it won't get better.