I refer to Paolo's intriguing post, and especially to his two questions at the end:
"recently, as artist i also have others concerns, like, how can i eventually sell stolen content to museums or private collectors? will i be allowed to sell such of artworks to third parties, or i'll have to pay the royalties to Amazon or Facebook? this is clearly a funny irony."
You would make a very interesting and lucrative client for a specialist art lawyer (if of course you were willing and able to pay such fees :)
A key problem such a lawyer would have to grapple with, on your behalf, is the ancient legal maxim that still operates in many jurisdictions today and derives from Classical Roman times: nemo dat quod non habet. Which roughly translated means: you cannot sell as your own anything that you've stolen from someone else.
Paolo's other question:
"however, i like to compare my works to former artistic practices of depiction of contemporary environments, alike Andy Whorol was allowed to use logos of brands in his works, or maybe at the time corporations weren't the dominators and the legislators yet? hopefully they will never be in charge to rule the world, and i'll be able to continue my artistic practice even more freely."
Copyright law in the USA, and in many (but not all) other countries, allows copyright works to be appropriated for the purposes of parody - but only if the copyright work is a visual icon (which, so legislative thinking goes, would be so well known by the general public that it could not be damaged by someone parodying it).
Warhol, who as we know came to art from a commercial design/advertising career, was well versed in the legal limits of appropriation of other people's images. Only once in his entire career did he suffer a lawsuit for using someone's photographic image without their prior consent (it hurt his pride more than his pocket, by all acccounts).