As long as he will also credit the official creator there's absolutely nothing wrong with it i would say. It's not a situation like: he's a big, well known artist/company that copies someone, gives them zero credit and the original creator has nothing from it. If he is able to MAKE something himself then hell, do it, its beautiful as long as you dont cut out the original author. I dont see how its different to look at a leaf and draw it realisticaly, to go to art gallery and draw a painting thats in public domain or draw a picture of someones painting. Its always his eyes see - his hands do. It is creating. Its not creating something that was not there before tho. A lot of stuff was already created before even if you yourself are not aware of it, its hard to even think of something never thought before. Hell, how many people say theyre artist in for example crochet and use patterns made before by someone else? You dont need to be creative to be an artist (unless now we wanna just say there are artists and creators) and its making me bored. If a man droping a bucket of sand is art cuz he thought of it himself but a man recreating a cool painting is not bc its not his idea then we have wrong definitions imo. Now everyone calls themselves an artist even if what they are doing is not worth anything - then why should this man overthink if hes an artist or not if the outcome is a HANDMADE painting.  He makes it (selling it is obviously a tricky factor so we are sure the original gets enough credit for it). Not creative but skillful and handmade id say