I think the main problem with this philosophy is proving you didn't base yours off the other person's. This is especially difficult if the designs, while not just similar, have similar color schemes.

You, nor I, nor anyone else in the world can "copyright" color schemes. That'd be like copyrighting the sky or a tree xP

I can copyright a character just the same as developers can, though I'd never bother. If you copy a species and color scheme, whether or not you "didn't know" someone else had done the exact same thing, they own that copyright already, just because you were ignorant to the fact they own it doesn't mean you get a pass.

I don't mean it like that. I mean if you were to copyright say.. a hyrbid species.. and someone else makes a hybrid similar to that species, it's not the same, thus you'd have no right to claim copyright. If I exactly traced your hyrbid's design and traits of creation, then yes, you could. But..

Ok. Let's put it this way. Say you draw and "claim ownership of" a shark-fox hybrid that has wings, and bio-luminescent markings.
If I were to draw a shark-fox, with a different design of wings and different configuration of the hybrid with bio-luminescent markings and genitalia, you couldn't claim ownership of my design just because you drew a shark-fox hybrid.

Let's go with the "Naga" argument that I have proof of existing. Someone here on FA claims to own his species of Naga and nearly anyone else's naga design. Their naga's characteristics include drinking blood for sustainability to survive and horns on their head and their pelvic scales opening to reveal genitalia. If I drew a naga, with horns, and pelvic scales to reveal genitalia, but my naga doesn't need blood to survive, basically, I simply took the natural anatomy of a snake, gave it a human torso, and horns on it's head. How does that person have any right to claim ownership and deny me right to draw and have ownership of my naga, and threaten me with legal measure, if their "naga species" has an entirely different backstory of creation, and has entirely different traits and characteristics that mine don't have?

That same "argument" would be like if say, VW or BMW wanted to claim rights to all vehicular modes of transportation's design. Couldn't happen. Same goes for the design of weaponry. I couldn't claim ownership to design rights of the parts to build a gun simply because I drew up a gun and used those parts.

This is where my argument holds truth.

They dont for a lot of what you said, but making money is one thing. Differences of behaviors cant be proven to just be coincidences, its very possible you couldve seen them in the past and based yours off of it. Im not saying you did but from an outsiders perspective they dont know, and you could be making money off of someone else's work if you just copied it with little minor differnces. Thats why copyright is so difficult especially in art, you cant prove youve never seen the outside drawers species, nor can they prove you did. Its best to just avoid it if possible. Try not to attempt to make money off of them.

That's my whole problem with Closed Species. If I'm drawing or commissioning an artist, I'm not making money... It's either free, or money out of my pocket... no where in that would I be gaining any income other than art of a character

Then copyrights shouldnt matter really, they only have legal highground when youre getting income off of it without paying them something. I could make coca cola at home from scratch and its legal.