Maybe to you it's a big difference. But that's a subjective matter. The fact in both cases is that someone is altering a copyrighted work, then reselling it, without the permission of the person who owns the copyright.
The example of how the director has a hand in the TV / airline version? What's the difference?
The difference is the involvement and approval of the copyright holder. You can't seriously stand here and say that it's okay for someone to do one sort of alteration that you approve of to a copyrighted work, but it's not okay to do a different alteration that you don't like to the same work, or to another work.
It's done all the time in many other industries. It's a relationship known as an "OEM"; although, far more accurately, a "value-added reseller", or VAR. EXACTLY the same thing.
"The difference is the involvement and approval of the copyright holder. You can't seriously stand here and say that it's okay for someone to do one sort of alteration that you approve of to a copyrighted work, but it's not okay to do a different alteration that you don't like to the same work, or to another work."
I didn't say that. You said that. You also, conveniently, managed to ignore my example. It's a dead-on example, and you and I know it. Still, you chose to ignore it. Try again.....and address the real argument; the reality of this little non-issue.
Stop cloaking this in pseudo high-minded language. We're talking about removing swear words and women's boobs......or sexual acts. Big deal. It's done all the time, you admit it, but if the director removes a "s**t" or a "go**amn", it's ok. A third party does it, oh my gosh, it's the end of artistic freedom and society as we know it.
Puh-leeze...........give me just one, big, honkin' break.