Here's a secondary source that explains your point.This is the kind of detail I was looking for.
The Exclusive Rights
A copyright owner has five exclusive rights in the copyrighted work:
Reproduction Right. The reproduction right is the right to copy, duplicate, transcribe, or imitate the work in fixed form.
Modification Right. The modification right (also known as the derivative works right) is the right to modify the work to create a new work. A new work that is based on a preexisting work is known as a "derivative work."
Distribution Right. The distribution right is the right to distribute copies of the work to the public by sale, rental, lease, or lending.
Public Performance Right. The public performance right is the right to recite, play, dance, act, or show the work at public place or to transmit it to the public. In the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, showing the work's images in sequence is considered "performance."
Public Display Right. The public display right is the right to show a copy of the work directly or by means of a film, slide, or television image at a public place or to transmit it to the public. In the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, showing the work's images out of sequence is considered "display."
Infringement
Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner is an infringer.
Example: Developer scanned Photographer's copyrighted photograph, altered the image by using digital editing software, and included the altered version of the photograph in a multimedia work that Developer sold to consumers. If Developer used Photographer's photograph without permission, Developer infringed Photographer's copyright by violating the reproduction right (scanning the photograph), the modification right (altering the photograph), and the distribution right (selling the altered photograph as part of the multimedia work).
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241476.html
Note that it all boils down to use "without permission". I'd like to see the language in the agreements between the producers and the vendors. There may be a colorable argument that permission had been granted.
Absolutely, "permission" is the key. Those songs which contain elements of another song, for example, the practice of "sampling" is fine--the new artist secures permission of the owner of the copyright of the previous work to use elements of the older song. That's fine.
You wrote: Note that it all boils down to use "without permission". I'd like to see the language in the agreements between the producers and the vendors. There may be a colorable argument that permission had been granted.
That's true but I'm sure the argument would have been made in this case. And if there was an actual agreement, the film industry would have no case!