I'm not going to disagree with you, especially about napster .(even though what a person does and doesn't believe is immaterial when it comes to the law, I believe when an individual is directly paid for a product such as a song, it is wrong to get it for free, since as cypherx accurately pointed out, that is stealing.)

But now, as to the usage of an image which is distributed among the public two different ways, as a product which we pay for, ie a show, movie, magazine, etc..., and as part of a promotion that is provided free of charge, ie... a commercial, website, etc.. How is it
concluded that , to quote cypherx,

you are taking money out of their pockets

when you use an image from a source that isn't marketed for money directly, but it is distributed among the public freely to induce people to spend money on the companies actual product.

It would seem, in this instance, that the more the image appears,
the more it Helps them Generate income.

Of course, thats my opinion, and in no way reflects my actual knowledge of the legality of this issue.

To Quote Myself,

So, to me, it seems like there is no copyright problem whatsoever

Right. To me, there is no problem. But its still illegal.




-Lou