The only similarity is that it's a bear with a Free Hugs sign. This does NOT look very similar to "the original".
Everything we do (and thus create) is based on things from the past, that's why it's almost impossible to be completely "original". As long as you use your own particular style and don't copy the exact layout of something else, then something is original. Only complete knockoffs aren't original.
There's a bear wearing sunglasses, in the forest, holding a sign that says "free hugs". Both have all the same elements. All because it's rehashed with a particular style doesn't mean it isn't infringing on the original idea. Your point of view is a philosophical one, which I agree with, but it will not hold up in court. Besides, I didn't say "knock off", I said "very similar to the original".
If you read my comment you'll see I never claimed you said 'knockoff'. That's what you make of it.
If it does or does not hold up in court is beside the question. But since you mention it, there's no reason to believe the link you posted was "the original idea". How far back have you searched for a posible first of this idea?
And there is hardly anything philosophical about the truth, which in case of a court case, is very important. The truth is, anybody drawing hunters and bizons could in your view be sued because some caveman had "the original idea" of dwawing them together. Doesn't that sound completely ridiculous?
There's no sense in suing somebody unless it's a complete knockoff, but the fact is that money is power and that money prevails over common sense many times. I say, time to change that and claim back progress