It's not a case of just being influenced by a style or painting and making your own version.

fineartamerica.com/profiles/richard-young.html?tab=artworkgalleries&artworkgalleryid=28322

Young could use the argument that Whatsons art is identical apart from the graf sprayed on the Tutu and that Young is selling prints base don his painting and Whatsons version could affect his sales or devalue his painting etc.

  There is also the www.arsny.com/basics.html Artists Rights Society whic protects artists rights as well as intellectual artists rights too.

""What is Copyright?

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (Title 17, U.S. Code) to the creators of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available for both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
•To reproduce the work in copies or phono records;
•To prepare derivative works based upon the work;"""

     Fairey and Brainfart got done for copyright infringement and for not crediting the original source of their image too.

  Brainwash got done for his Sid Vicious ripoff.

Picasso in his versions of other artists Velasquez and Delacroix femmes d'Algiers versions credited the original source of his versions which looked nothing like the originals.

 If street and urban art consists of lots of so called artists that are too idle or unimaginative to create their own unique images and all they do is rip off other images then people who buy the art and editions are being taken for suckers.

   and no wonder it's not being taken seriously.

Nov 2, 2014 0:42:14 GMT 1 Dr Plip said:

How is this really an issue? It's a little amusing to come across the stock image that an artist has used, but that's about it. If an artist is caught out lying about not using a stock image, then that might me another matter. But is this new? F**k no. Artists use life models all the time. Where you can't afford that or if you can't stand the thought of spending time with another living human being, there are stock images. Urban or street artists use stock images loads of the time. Especially if they're being subversive.

Edit: I mean really, if you're a street artist, how the heck are you supposed to gain access to a f**king ballerina for an hour or two so you can draw her? The Bolshoi don't just leave them lying around y'know.

surely if two different artists made paintings based on a stock image. Their paintings would be different from each others not look identical including shaded areas etc.

Unless of course both artists just scaled up the stock image using a magic lantern or computer or photographic enlargment made into a stencil.