I don't think anyone here is arguing that cultural references are not fair game. To me it comes down to the artist's intention for creating the piece and how they expect to make money from it. Homage prints are clearly looking to pickup sales from the same pool of people consuming from the original intellectual property owners. Right or wrong, legal or illegal, that's the intent. As a concept that lacks depth to me. Stuff that gets me energized transforms the reference into saying something completely different.
Take for example the work of Print Mafia. When they create a print of John Lennon, I may be wrong but I don't think they're looking to pickup sales from Beatles fans. They use that image for it's iconic reference and cultural weight. It's not as much an homage to John Lennon in that regard. The message has been altered and become something more. To me that's when it gets interesting.
An excellent and thoughtful critique, now we're talking...thanks Andrew!
Aesthetic opinions aside, the biggest difference between the posters you are defending and the ones you are trying to call me out on is that mine are all commissioned by the festival, the promoter and the band's management (respectively) and are all covered by contracts.
Also, I did talk to a lawyer regarding the SW themed posters I created.
This tread has become borderline trolling at this point.
tuffy, it looks like you're showing favoritism to Phil Collins. NOT COOL.