So you're not talking about permission, you're talking about people who claim to be artists who are actually NOT artists (as your quotes imply) BECAUSE they rely "on the works of others." So these artists have no right to the derivative work because they grifted it. Like when Disney makes movies out of stories like The Little Mermaid or Hunchback of Notre Dame...or when a bunch of actors, directors and producers instead of coming up with something ORIGINAL decide to take a book and turn it into a film (a la Twilight, Hunger Games, Fight Club...and a little something called HARRY FUCKING POTTER.)
All of those folks by virtue of using "the works of others" should not have any rights to create these derivative works (with or without permission because the point in your post is not legal permission it is the relationship between "artistry" and "using the works of others." A relationship that by your logic can not exist because those who use the work of others are NOT artists and what they create is not art and therefore has no artistic protection.
Someone else made Twilight (Stephenie Meyer) and Kristin Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and everyone involved in making the films profited from that work by participating in creating a derivative. Because none of them are original enough to use their own ideas. They had to use someone else's.