Hi @geekpowered, art paraphrasing is a tricky one. One cannot say the users intent was deceptive or otherwise. This is why I think it is important to treat failure to cite source of inspiration the same independent of perceived intent.
If we want users to be more careful to cite source of inspiration, the payout is the best route to effect that change. We also must understand there are persons who will intentionally omit the source of inspiration in order to embellish their talent which is not good for honest creators.
Jaguar may be a bit brusque in how they go about it but think there is a valid point behind the presentation.
P.S. I don't really agree with the character judgments JF is trying to assert. It could be an honest mistake but it would be fair game to flag for art paraphrasing despite their treatment of the user.
It's likely a derivative work...but it's debatable if the added originality is truly deserving of extensive flags. It wasn't just a copy, but a copy of a reference for simply a portion of a work. I personally really liked the mandala flowers. Treating everyone the same regardless of circumstance ignores the fact that every situation is different. It's not an exact copy. It's far closer than she should have done...but she also did a lot of originality in the rest of the work.
Additionally, it's actually a public domain image.
https://etc.usf.edu/clipart/50600/50687/50687_heart.htm
That doesnt change anything. still needs to be cited, plagiarism isnt about the use rights of the image, is about lack of attribution, no matter what the status of the image.
Its the same as if you quote or copy a part of a book that is in the public domain, you still need to give attribution.