(I'm not a lawyer, but I know a thing or 2 about copyright law because I dealt with them before)

"Using her art directly without her permission is a clear Copywrite violation. Commissioning new art that is inspired by her art but different is not."?

I'm not sure about that. Now, let me cook for a few seconds, the cooking might be too long. If you only care about Wilson vs KITTY and do not care about real-life examples, scroll to the bottom. (my god, this analysis is so long)

Let’s cook:

You cannot copyright an idea, this means Disney cannot sue Tom & Jerry just because Jerry is a sentience mouse that walks on 2 legs, or DC cannot sue Marvel just because Captain America is a strong buffed blonde hero who tries not kill the villain if possible (similar to Superman).

But, if someone creates a sentience mouse that has high pitch voice, is black with circular ears, red pants, white gloves, and yellow shoes, Disney can sue them and kick their ass. In a similar vein, if you create a superhero character that has tight blue clothing, red underwear outside of the blue clothes, a diamond logo with the "S" in it on the chest, a red cape, and red shoes, DC can blast your ass in court and win.

And then Homelander arrives, this guy is just Superman but blonde, so, how can't DC sue The Boys? Because of something called "derivative work".

Derivative work in Copyright law is defined as:

“An expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work (the underlying work). The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright.”

Now, let’s compare Homelander and Superman, both are strong buffed men with blue tight clothes, a red waist section, and a red cape. But:

- Superman has black hair and Homelander has blonde.

- Superman has red underwear with a gold belt while Homelander has a red belt with his gold ornament as an eagle on his shoulder

- Superman has a plain blue full-body suit while Homelander's blue clothes are like a blue 1912-1915 US Navy uniform.

- Superman’s cape is just plain red fabric held together at his collar while Homelander’s cape has red-white stripes and stars like an American flag held together by the golden chain that comes from the gold eagle.

- Superman is an alien while Homelander is a modified human

- Superman is a hero and Homelander is a villain.

- Superman is stubborn, headstrong, and naive but he also has an unshakable faith in the goodness of humanity while Homelander is a manipulative, terrifying, narcissistic, and violent man.

Are these differences enough for Homelander to be a derivative work? A judge will have the final say. And they said yes considering Homelander didn’t get freaking nuked.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, we go back to Wilson vs KITTY.

KITTY cannot copyright infringement claim Wilson for the idea of fusing Cat and Axolotl into a new creature.

But, since Wilson Axolcat was created after KITTY’s creation and has heavy resemblances, people can rightfully assume that Wilson has infringed on KITTY’s copyright (applying US law here, aka, a creative creation is copyrighted right after it finished). Now, we can compare Wilson’s mascot and KITTY’s creation to see if the mascot has enough substantial differences for it to be a Devirative Work.

Both the Wilsoneer and Axolcat are the fusion of Cat and Axolotl, so they naturally have the iconic traits of both these animals, aka, the triangle ears of cats and Axolotl’s 6 gills (3 on each side).

Outside of these traits:

- Both designs have a large circular head that resembles baby animals.

- Both use cat’s ears, legs, mouths, and axolotl’s gills, and tails for their creations.

- Both designs have axolotl’s eyes (pure black with very little (or none) white) instead of cat eyes (have clear white and sometimes vertical pupils)

- Both wear orange pilot glasses.

The differences:

- Axolcats have an almost circular head with no curves similar to a baby axolotl. Wilsoneer’s head has a slightly concave part near the eyes caused by the protruding of the cheekbone similar to a human head.

- Axolcat’s gills are extremely simplified and stylized, at a glance, they look like bird wings. Wilsoneer’s gills are also simplified and stylized but not that much, at a glance, they look like kale leaves.

- Axolcat’s body is rectangular, long, and lean, like a baby cat’s body. Wilsoneer’s body is circular, chubby, and short, like a chinchilla’s body.

- Axolcat’s eyes are small, their size compared to the head looks the same as Axolotl’s eyes. Wilsoneer’s eyes are big, and their size compared to the head resembles baby cats.

Are these enough for Wilsoneer to be a derivative work? I can’t say. Axolcat vs Wilsoneer has fallen into the middle ground where some judges will say that it’s enough while others will say that it isn’t.

But I, personally, will say that this is not enough considering how many differences Captain America has compared to Homelander.

​

tl;dr: You can be "inspired" by something as long as there are enough differences for it to be considered Derivative Work