I run a D&D campaign, and am frequently inspired by the things I see around me - but almost none of them make it into the game on a purely 1:1 basis. I take bits and pieces, shuffle and rearrange them.
Shakespeare seeing some images, and taking bits and pieces that fit the story best seems so plausible to me.
(But also, what I know about Shakespeare can probably be written down on a post-it with a sharpie, so take my opinions with whatever amount of salt required.)
Shakespeare tended to re-use existing stories or plays. As the article mentions, there are only two of his plays (out of almost 40) where we don’t know of a pre-existing source. Of course it is possible he made the story up himself after getting inspired by a drawing, buy I find it a lot more plausible he based it on another story or play which just happens to be lost (which is the case for many plays of the age).
Yeah, that's a very fair point, and the biggest strike against this theory.
It is kind of incredible that the man considered to be the best playwright and author in the English language basically just copied existing stories. On the other hand, the firsts were often groundbreaking and influential, but their actual works aren't that good compared to what came after.
He didn’t just copy the stories. He retold them with his own language and poetry and characterization, which is what he is celebrated for. Often his changes completely reframes the original story - but the basic storyline and the names of the characters remain the same.