As far as it goes I could care less if its used or not but in response to your terse reply here's the real facts, just saying its not as black and white as you suppose..
Quote: "“Fair use” or “fair dealing” is a concept that is applied in common law countries, such as the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and India. It recognizes that certain types of use of other people’s copyright-protected works do not require the copyright owner’s authorization. It is presumed that the use is sufficiently minimal that it will not unreasonably interfere with the copyright owner’s exclusive rights to reproduce and otherwise use the work. When you photograph copyright material, there is no simple rule to determine whether your use is “fair use.” Each case is to be determined on its own facts and circumstances, which means that it is not always possible to assess your liabilities with certainty ahead of time. In practice, courts apply various factors to decide this question, such as:
the amount of the work used;
the nature of the copyright work;
the nature of the use; and
the effect of the use on the potential market for the original work."
The above applies to photography and I would suppose digital works too, I was only saying I highly doubt the texture being used in this case would cause any kind of problems, but thats only my opinion and perhaps we should all be aware we might be sent to jail and the key thrown away for committing such heinous acts of copyright theft. I am usually the first to point out ripped works around here but even I wouldn't think of coming down so hard on this one.
Awesome! Its one of those threads.