>>5860465Copycats would fall under "plagiarism".
>"Plagiarism is the representation of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work."But the law has so many nuances about what counts as plagiarism and not.
In the visual arts, to make it short; it really depends on the type of work and the actual IP/brand behind it.
And the CSR copycats that have been popping up all over the place only have ONE thing in common
>The "rendering"That's where most will see the similarities, but the drawing style/anatomy varies.
Unless compositions and subject matter match 1:1 (again with a lot of nuances), it cannot be counted as plagiarism.
It's the same as with fanart and copyright and "fair use".
Normally, you cannot distribute or make money from art of already existing IPs... UNLESS it's your own work, it doesn't use any assets of that IP/brand and it is "transformative".
Same as the Sakimi copycats, the CSR copycats have all the right to monetize their works, even if they took a pose from the original, since the original artist has a copyright and distribution rights on his own work, but doesn't have any rights on the poses or the characters from other IPs.
You can see copycats as "legal bootleggers", and in the end, it's the consumers who give the copycats legitimacy to exist.
Think it like this;
If one were to invent something new;
>a music box that gives you ice cream at the end of each songThat guy would have the rights to THAT specific creation, BUT anyone is allowed to make and sell their own music box that gives out ice cream as long as they don't recreate the EXACT SAME box as the original.
So, you can safely steal and copy any artists' work, as long as you don't just copy it 1:1.
