Oh, happy days.
And maybe, next time we're in the violin emporium, she should maybe pilfer a Vuillaume bow ... y'know, just slip it into her violin case when no-one's looking. It would be easy - it would f'ck the emporium's profits, maybe put them out of business but...
That all seems reasonable by your logic it seems.
Are you saying, Johnny, that (ahem) "artists" are somehow 'superior' and somehow exempt from the law compared with "mere mortals" such as, for example, I dunno, nurses or a brain surgeon or even a humble 'lollipop lady' leading children to safety on busy roads on their way to school ... or the chaps who empty your bins, whatever ... you know - people who abide by the law? What a load of total arse gravy!
It was obviously tongue in cheek.
I don't steal guitars or think its right. I have defended the protection of intellectual property here many times before. Please don't use the phrase 'arse gravy' - it really is a very unpleasant image.
Back to the original topic, the scope of the music is important. If its going on soundcloud only, its probably fine. Same for a vinyl release. If its a hit and you getting big sync offers the risk is too big.
I do think if a fair deal is possible then you should go for it. I know artists who have been blatantly sampled by big acts and then cut out of any royalties because the big artists can pay for bigger lawyers and rerecording of the sample. It helps to have a music lawyer you can talk to about these things - they will have a reasonable idea whether the person / company you are dealing with will be fair and ready to negotiate.