I knew you were going to say that, which is why I used it. You're making another one of your famous strawman arguments. My point, if'n you read it correctly, was that Disney had the option to enforce and did; whereas Hanna-Barbera went beyond the ordinary and offered their services to allow use of their's. In effect offering permission even though the day care center never asked to use their images.

It doesn't matter if you're not a business, an individual, a church or a non-profit. Just google it and you'll find the constant line of — no one can use it without your permission because it's a form of property. You can't come on my property and use my lawnmower, without asking either just because you're not going to make money cutting your own lawn.

This is usually the very first myth I have to clear up when I give talks on it. No, I am not a lawyer, but as a creative professional and sometimes adjunct instructor it is my job to give students a basic understanding of copyright.

What you may have it confused with, as Austin once used, is the Fair Use exemptions but not making money is one of those exemptions, which are actually very narrow. Such as educational use where snippets of copyright material can be used and satire. There's one or two more but it's narrow. And of course something has to be considered copyrightable and not in the public domain. Neither of these things apply. There is a minimum amount one can sue for even if the guilty party didn't make money from using it. You own something, someone needs to ask permission to use. PERIOD.