Artists have been copying each other forever. Nothing new but this guy makes it so obvious based on the article. In my opinion, the great ones create something new that begs to be copied or noticeably differentiates their work . The great masters all copied one another. It was very hard at times to distinguish their works but that was in a time where society, critics, and dealers deemed what was acceptable art. It is similar today but more broad but I believe we are going to see someone great again, hopefully in my lifetime. Van Gogh was so far ahead of time he could not even make a living at it because society was hanging on to certain ideas as what was acceptable in art. Mark Rothko was brilliant and accepted but could not be copied because of his technique (still a mystery today). Pollock, arguably, may have been the last great painter in that he did something totally new and clearly distinguished his work. He was accepted with a fight of course but his work is easily copied.
I see this is probably true of photographers as well but I do not know the history, like I do painting. This guy in the link does not appear to have an original thought in his head but I am basing that on the article. I have never seen a large body of his work or any others to really compare it to and give a fair judgement. I think you have made it when someone can look at your work and say that is so and so's work, like Ansel Adams, when you see one of his your like, oh, that's an Ansel Adams piece. The million dollar question then becomes, how do you do that? This guy apparently (according to article) has found a way around that and I say good for him! People are probably jealous but at the end of the day, he probably has a lot more money in the bank then the people criticizing him.
Picasso once said, “Bad artists copy. Good artists steal.” .... this guy is probably good.