I don't have a dog in the fight but I imagine that the question comes down to paint. Not in the literal sense, but in this scenario it would be like taking ind

I don't have a dog in the fight but I imagine that the question comes down to paint. Not in the literal sense, but in this scenario it would be like taking indistinguishable copies all of H.R. Geiger's art, painted from the same paint that H.R. Geiger used, washing the canvases clean, and then using those same paints to paint something new in H.R. Geiger's style from memory. There is something indefinable that has been transgressed. The style, the ownership of the paints themselves are undeniably H.R. Geiger's. Here's the receipt. But, what was painted with them was not actually H.R. Geiger's. The originals were not destroyed or damaged in any way. H.R. Geiger lost nothing and if enough people saw the new art it might even profit the estate of the originator by increased attention and sales, heck, even the paint was free. This result would have been impossible without H.R. Geiger's paints and how he used them. The question is, was this theft? Did this take something from someone? Are they damaged? I think the answer is yes it is theft, but that nothing was taken and there is no damage, but that's just me.