I was looking for that.

Knew I had seen it somewhere.

I think we set the bar quite high for artists sometimes. If their print doesn't sell out immediately, it's some sort of mark of failure. Likewise, if months later, a print goes on to "just" hold its original retail price, or heaven forbid, sell for below cost, again another mark of failure.

They're criticised for making duds. Criticised for not trying new things. Criticised when people can't purchase a print during the drop. Criticised when they don't stop people from flipping them. Too expensive, etc.

It's very difficult to make a living as an artist. Much easier to be a painter and decorator.

Anyway, I can completely understand artists making the same things or using the same concepts. For many, that might be their "thing" or what they enjoy doing. Something they have a connection to and are proud of. For some, it might be just something they're particularly good at. Or perhaps they're just sticking to what's brought the money in before? I can imagine artists being encouraged to keep making what's been commercially successful previously. Especially if they're represented by a gallery as well.

If artists are lucky enough or talented enough, they get to make work that they enjoy and others enjoy owning.

I agree with all that and as someone who is involved in the arts I appreciate that it is very difficult to make a living as an artist but my surprise was at the infringement of the copyright of the original and the artistic integrity.