I understand the flaw in the logic of "bunny from Looney Tunes = must be a Bugs clone." I agree that that's silly, I said exactly that in my first reply after all.
I still don't follow the logic on the "video game characters are inherently less unique" deal though. I feel like you're being dismissive of that medium for the sake of your argument.
In addition, while again, I think it's flawed to automatically assume a character like Lola (or any character really) should be a clone, any character, regardless of medium aren't precluded from this.
Even looking at characters like Luigi and Shadow who are deliberately similar in their source material or even clones/echoes in Smash itself like Roy/Chrom, etc. you can make the same argument in either direction. From the onset, you could say Roy had no business being a Marth clone or Chrom one of Roy. You could argue that Daisy, Dark Samus, Richter, etc. could have all had completely unique move sets of their own. And they could have. After all, there are many unique traits and abilities ignored in service of making them into clones and for any gaps it's not like we don't have mostly or completely made-up kits for characters like Fox or Captain Falcon.
All that is true, but they're still clones anyway. Not because they can't be unique, but because they could reasonably be made less so. Clones exist to squeeze a little more out of the assets you've already got without spending too much more time or additional resources. When cloning enters the equation, source accuracy loses some of its priority.
Characters who you might not think of as potential clones might be seen differently in the eyes of a developer. In a scenario where they're looking to get that extra squeeze you may wind up with situations that feel off to you (Falcondorf back in Melee for example, was that for a lot of people and still is to this day). It's just a matter of if the circumstances align.
Taking a look at cartoons and comics now, you'll see plenty of examples of "derivative" or "samey" characters and ideas just as often as you would in games. And again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing either, just pointing out that this lack of "uniqueness" isn't unique to video games.
You don't need to look hard; Hawkeye and Green Arrow, Superman/Omniman/Homelander, the many Hanna-Barbera Mystery Inc. clones etc.
I'll even include Wile E. as a candidate for a Bugs clone/semi-clone here as an example. Do I think he should be? No, of course not, but under the circumstances of "we need a Bugs clone (and Lola is off the table for whatever reason,)" you can make it work. Close enough body structure. Close enough cartoon antics. He's absolutely not as suitable for this role, but with some creativity and creative liberty (and probably some necessary changes hence the semi and not full-on clone) a dev looking for an extra character to squeeze could make do with something like that.
Going back to Lola, she could absolutely be unique, but they could also take the clone route just as easily if they felt so inclined. And not just as a LeBron clone either, I think a Bugs clone would be the more obvious path of least resistance. Particularly if they go with the LTS version. Much closer body structure and a much zanier personality that would feel at right at home doing a lot of Bug's classic Looney Tunes antics.
Overall, I do agree that making that automatic assumption and holding it up as the only option is flawed, but to say that the logic can't or shouldn't be applied is also flawed. All fictional characters regardless of medium/origin are malleable and open to new interpretations when in the hands of different artists/devs. Mileage will vary depending on what/how much you change (especially with more well-established characters,) but there's always multiple routes to be taken.
That did wind up being a bit long, sorry for the text wall.
