Where are you going with this line of thought? That making a copy of someone's work, using it for profit and not crediting them doesn't "take" anything from them?
I find that these discussions at the intersection of art and law tend to blur technical and familiar uses of words. So it's important to specify what was actually taken here because otherwise the discussion becomes muddy.
"making a copy of someone's work, using it for profit and not crediting them" wasn't really the scenario being discussed in this thread -- is that what you meant by "taking"?
Steve had made the point:
Not every single thing in the entire world requires explicit consent.
But actually taking someone else's verbatim work and selling it as your own is one of those instances where consent would be required, because many people see a clear line between someone selling another author's work and the author not getting a dollar because of that.
That doesn't preclude other instance where explicit consent is not required. For example, do I need your consent to learn from your work and produce similar work of my own? Am I required to credit you in my work for having learned from you? Am I taking from you if I don't share my profits with you?
Some rights holders would say yes, actually. Which, I don't agree with. I think it's important that we not require the artist's explicit consent for all things, because listening to some of rights holders (e.g. Disney), they have very expansive ideas about what kind of control they are owed by society over their creations.
Therefore, I think if you're going to claim something has been taken, you should specify what exactly.
What has been "taken", exactly?