I think Zeta is questioning the quality of the original pic. Which was never implied.
I'm questioning the risk/reward ratio of steeling these lame-ass characters.
And yet, we have overwhelming evidence that folks do this (risk/reward):
(1) plagiarism is not simply the domain of lazy students, but even accomplished/professional artists/writers/poets (there is actually a lot of interesting academic work on this subject...digitizing texts has allowed researchers to identify "suspect" passages! It's crazy.)
(2) Professional "legit" websites scrape content from other sites.
(2.5) Electronic publications routinely use photos/illustrations without crediting original source or paying royalties. My friend is constantly requesting modest fees for the few places that actually want to use his photography.
(3) Homage vs. rip-off (it's a fine line, wouldn't you say? "Paying respect" vs. "Being too damn lazy")
(4) But wait! This was 1990-91: LIFE IN THE PRE-INTERNET WORLD:
P.P. Hammer artist, circa 1991: "What are the chances that anyone will ever identify my source material, a Japanese-only illustration for a Gameboy title?"
P.P. Hammer artist, moments later: "Even if the source material is identified, my paycheck will have been long-spent! Plus, it's an homage, anyway."
I would suggest that the crucial observation is not:
"Plagiarizing is too risky, especially when minimal extra effort would result in an original work."
but rather:
"Desperation/laziness/ignorance/brazen disregard for content creators --> leads to plagiarization, even in a post-1991 digital world that allows for quicker identification of plagiarism."