but it isn't a "copy" it's a rendering in a completely different material that looks completely different.
Now we can argue the definition of copy...
p.s. yes. Been raining most of the day. Damp wet and miserable.
Sorry. I hate rainy damp days. That's why I live in no rain California. Lived in rainy Portland Oregon and just about committed suicide. Daily.
On her stuff:
Her whole schtick, which she readily admits, is to plagiarize famous pictures. Otherwise she would have just made pictures of her kids or grandmother or her cat. And I hope she makes millions, and they're very cute and innovative.
But they would be rather worthless if she didn't plagiarize famous pictures and far less charming.
The medium she uses is not really important in a lawsuit. You could make play-doe logos out of famous brands and sell them. But I think she'd get some cease and desist letters.
So my point is simply this. She may or may not get sued, and usually you don't if you're stuff is under the radar. But that's all lawyer stuff.
But plagiarizing other people's images, logos, trademarks etc etc is covered by laws.
Anyway have a good day and I hope the sun soon comes out.