| I don’t think styles a la “Impressionism” or “Manga” are generally copyrightable. Potentially narrowly trademark-able for a specific look and feel that correspond to a branding. But Warner brothers can’t sue people for using “bullet time” in other movies after The Matrix created it. “Inspired by” is not sufficient to meet the legal definition of a “derivative work”. There’s a 4-part test for whether a derivative work is in violation of the copyright in the source material. Relevant to this discussion would be 3 of the 4 parts: (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. There’s an infinite corpus of case law which more substantially defines the reality of these three points. But it’s somewhat universal that if someone invents an artistic style, another artist can replicate that platonic style without copying any particular elements of the tangible art. This has a nearly 100% chance of being deemed a “transformative work” which is always an allowed version of a derivative work under western copyright law. Copyright simply does not prevent people from making “transformative” works of art that are obviously based on copyrighted art. |