As for creativity, the above examples show a total lack of it. The SW one is pretty obviously a tracing. Anybody can do that. And there are plenty of other similar examples as have been raised in past threads on the subject. Not that such copying is bad, it's a time honoured tradition of students of art to copy the masters to develop their talent. Selling such copies is where things get interesting.
Actually, it is a standard artisitc practice to borrow and steal, and it has an honourable history. In fact, in some eras it has been compulsory!
However, modern artists and illustrators will often use previous work for inspiration, and will lift poses and facial features. An out and out copy is probably a bit cheeky, especially of someone else's illustration, but using a photograph as a basis is not, or shouldn't be, an issue.
Art galleries are full of work like that. It's not as if Andy Warhol actually took the photos used in his prints of Marylin and the rest. Or Roy Lichtenstein's paintings.
The trick, as an artist, is to make the work your own, even if you are using other's work as your foundation. Check out Arthur Ranson's work for 2000AD and others. He pretty clearly uses all sorts of phots, but he owns the results fully.
What will be interesting is that court case over that famous painting of Obama adopted as a poster. The artist took the image from, I think, an AP photograph, and they were sueing him over infringement of copyright. Not sure how that is panning out, or whether it's even been heard yet.