Commercial Art versus Commercial Use of Fine Art

In my opinion, there is a big difference between doing commercial art and doing commercial use of fine art.
What should define a piece as fine art or as commercial art is the concept and the creation of the artwork itself. Once your art is born, what you do with its image has nothing to do with its status as fine art.
Otherwise, why should it be ok for a museum to reproduce an artist's painting? would it make a difference if the artist did it? for a long time, art reproductions have given people the opportunity to cherish artworks that they would not be able to afford otherwise. The only difference that I see between the posters that are published by a museum and the ones published by the artists is who gets the income.
I do not condemn any artist for producing artworks that match their collector's couches. I do not believe that we should judge an Artist for painting what he thinks that will sell. if one has to go such distance to pay the bills, we can only commiserate with them. Now, if they decide to call it fine art, that is something else. To me, that is clearly commercial art. There is nothing wrong in doing it, but fooling wealthy uneducated collectors to believe that they are investing in fine art with a future as investment is way past the line.
Perhaps those artists do not know the difference and they are just doing what they believe to be fine art. However, most of them do know and try to explain themselves when confronted with the issue. Either they are in complete denial or they are plain dishonest.
These are my views on the subject. This is an open discussion. If anyone agrees or disagrees with me, you are welcome to write about it.