So sweet, yet sexy great job

WARNING, BIG COMMENT. 0__0
In light of recent events, I am now seriously conflicted when I look at this work.
On the face of it, a well hand drawn, pencil sketch of our favorite ship.
It contains all the elements of what we've all come to believe is 'ART'.
It's a full picture with background, if somewhat desolate, a tree and two figures.
The figures are Nick and Judy, we can see that, we can recognise them simply by the accurate way their facial features are drawn.
With all the above, we look at the art and say, 'good art'.
But then an ugly conflicting truth starts to emerge...
The artist most likely traced the facial features of our main characters?!
OK, so maybe the 'artist' is not very good with faces?
Hell, I'm not very good with ART!
But I can wield a pretty good photoshop...;)
The above artist has done this before, and been exposed .
(Go down to 'Make amends')
The reality of the situation is that a huge number of 'artists' are doing this, for expediency?
The above artist has been called to notice over at DevientArt, mainly for not crediting the parts of his work that he 'borrowed', therein being the question about 'what is an artist'?
Can anyone honestly look at this work and say, 'This guy is not an artist!', if the viewer is unaware of the history?
This all calls into question the definition of 'Artist'.
For example, if we look into the world of animation and you watch the credits at the end, there are literally hundreds of people credited as animators.
However, something like eighty percent of these people are what are referred to as tweeners, or fill-in artists.
their job is to draw, colour, texture, etc, EACH frame between what are known as 'keyframes', that are drawn by a more senior animator, who gets his/her work from the original artists.
If we go back to the fill-ins, these people still must have a skillset that gives them their job, they have to have some ability (possibly a little different today with CGI), and can be referred to as artists.
So, where do we stand?
I've looked at this guys work and thought, 'Wish I could draw that well...', and I still tend to think that!, but nowdays I wouldn't give his work score.
I would still comment on what's happening within the imagery, that's what I do. ;)
I will admit here and now, that I have done similar, in that I wanted a piece of 'art', to convey a concept, I can't draw to save my life, but I found a work close to what I wanted, and spent more than two weeks re-moulding that work in photoshop to get what I was after.
Can I call myself an 'artist'?
Personally, I don't, I just think of myself as having some abilities...
Do I call my creation 'art'?
YES, and many that look at it say also.
I think I commented elsewhere about the attitude to 'forgers'.
If someone recreates an indistinguishable copy of a famous work (I'm talking real art here, with paintbrushes an' stuff), the person is technically a forger, but to do that work, shouldn't they also be regarded in their own right as an Artist?

I can only hope that one day, The Winter Bunny will come back to keep doing what she loved.
Her heart is broken at the moment, but in time...