IANAL but artistic style is not copyrightable. Many many human artists have created images and animated films in the style of Ghibli or Disney or Pixar and there's no direct copyright issue there.
Also, Disney have deep pockets and Etsy would not want to argue it out with them if they got a complaint.
I fail to see how taking a distinctive artistic style that was incredibly difficult to produce and shitting out massive amounts of it everywhere as a super low quality commodity would pass the test of fair use.
"artistic style" is outright not copyrightable. Fair use doesn't play into it, any more than fair use doesn't play into whether a photo taken by a monkey can be redistributed[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
Not under US copyright law, AFAICT. He's won cases where he sued over things like false endorsement - i.e. claiming that listeners would believe it was actually him, not just that the style was similar.
(Apparently he did win a similar case in Spain under their copyright law, but from skimming articles it sounds like the issue there also was impersonation, not just stylistic similarity.)
- When does generative AI qualify for fair use?:
https://suchir.net/fair_use.html
- AI is currently just glorified compression:
But I do feel bad for partaking in part for Louis CK's Twitter-Jesus rant.