Actually, they don't have to prove it's "harmful" unless they are charging slander or libel... In the case of what we're talking about here, they just have to prove that you are making a profit by trading on the "image" that they own. Put another way... If you happen to look like James Bond, that's fine. And no need for any license, of course. If you dress up in a dinner suit, take along a Walther PPK and an Aston Martin, and get paid to show up at a function where a reasonable person will associate your apprearance and actions with the "James Bond" franchise, and you or the people who hired you benefit from that in any way, then UA/Glidrose is going to have a pretty good grounds for a lawsuit. The ramifications for making and selling a collection of software settings that will allow an artist to make an image that a reasonable person will associate with James Bond should be pretty clear... The ramifications for the end user who then sold such images would be even more dire, and the manufacturer of said settings would surely be named in any such suit.