Well if using a copyrighted character without permission isn't really theft then why use the copyrighted character? If the intent of the user is to just make art then the character is irrelevant. The only reason to include a copyrighted character is to exploit that character in some way. For example, if an artist uses Superman in their art, the question is why use him if the artist has no intention of making some attempt at character recognition between the viewer and their art. If they just want a hero they could easily change the suit or hair etc. Same with Mickey Mouse or any other figure. Why have the figure if the intent isn't to somehow exploit that figure's identity in some way. This is a stickler with people who claim no harm or foul when using a copyrighted character. If they really don't intend to somehow use the actual recognized image of that character in some way then why bother to have that figure in the work to begin with. Same with cars and bikes. Why make a car look like a Bimmer if the intent isn't to imply its a Bimmer. Or why make a bike look like a Harley with a Harley logo if the intent isn't to somehow capture the name recognition and image of a harley. Now here are definite limitations (most bikes look a lot a like). But when adding logos and such the question is why do so unless the name or image recognition is being exploited in some way. I personally don't like the harmless excuse. Wonder Woman doesn't accidently end up in a picture. There is intent to use that particular image. Now whether the company thinks this is acceptable use or not (fan art etc) is another matter.