Time to lawyer up.
Disney rip-off left, right and centre. Yes, they aggressively protect their IP, but that doesn't mean they won't trample all over everyone else's. they have a history of this behaviour.
http://theafictionado.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/lionking46...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/ReallyKimbaThe...
I mean, look at a lot of forensic women in thrillers. But that is just meant as a bit background-info on literature. There is even a "scientific" way of saying, some (very) old author copied from someone else:
Intertextuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertextuality
But as a side-note: Don't the ears of the white lion remind anyone of Mickey Mouse? Just saying... ;-)
* Mickey Mouse: First appearance - Steamboat Willie (1928)
* Kimba The White Lion: [..]Kimba the White Lion, is an anime series from the 1960s. Created by Osamu Tezuka and based on his manga of the same title which began publication in 1950
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1378/did-disneys-em...
I wanted to link to another article, but can't find it right now, but it had a comparison of specific shots that were alleged to have been plagiarised. I remember it being quite striking, but these things are usually in the eye of the beholder.
Regardless, on the general point, for those who believe in "remix" culture there's nothing ethically wrong with this kind of direct inspiration provided credit is given where it is due.
It's entirely plausible that someone would have thought it was a Disney-owned image originally, and in circulation in violation of copyright.
If that's true, it's not an excuse for using someone else's work without permission, but it would be a sad and ironic commentary on the sharing and re-mixing economy.
It is most likely one of these suppliers claimed to have created or licensed the image.
The artist will probably end up negotiating with the handbag maker.
https://www.disneyconsumerproducts.com/Home/display.jsp?cont...
So the artist may end up negotiating with the handbag maker, but they might benefit from starting out making a claim against Disney.
If I, A, lie to you, B, and as a result you take a supposedly-harmless action which is in fact a tort against aggrieved party C, I would expect you to be liable to C, and myself to be liable in turn to you. What did I do to C?
It just means you can sue disney, and then disney can turn around and attempt to recover the damages you win from the next guy up the chain.
You absolutely, positively, do not need to sue the people all the way up the chain.
I am an IP lawyer (though this is not legal advice, just an explanation of general concepts :P)
It's not excusable, but also isn't as conspiratorial.
My theory is that it was from a 3rd party contractor and it just slipped through.
If you need to talk about the law, then you want a lawyer.
For example, if she does this on her own, she might be well compensated but also unknowingly give up her copyrights in te deal. A good lawyer will be her advocate and make sure she understands everything she is about sign.