Every kind of creation that is heavily drawn from previous inspirations is “vandalism” as Denis Villeneuve says. Adaptions, translations, exact replicas are all forms of imitation with varying degrees of change. They all bridge a gap: adaptions connect media, translations connect languages, and replicas connect availability. There’s a distinction between adaptions and translations compared to replicas. The former two are intensely difficult creative endeavors in their own right. As they say, it’s easier to create a new thing than add to something that exists, and these two art forms require preserving an original voice and intent while also learning when to break the rules to help the source convey the proper messaging in the new environment. Replicas are solely a challenge in recreation—using any means necessary to get the same end result. The original creator’s voice becomes divine providence—replication is meant to duplicate, substitute, pretend to be something that it isn’t. I wonder how people think about when to make an intentional act of artistic “vandalism” vs. when they decide to just copy outright. Why do I feel ok copying a snippet of stack overflow code, whereas lifting an exact design or photo that exists feels so strange and wrong?