I'm glad I plowed through all five pages before throwing in my two-bits. A few of my points have been made already (which means I don't have to type as much!)

I'm squarely from the intent camp. A homage wants to be recognized. It draws attention to itself, shouts "Look, I'm having fun with this idea!" and those of us who remember the original source material appreciate the reference and the joke. For the most part, we are dealing with recognizable, iconic images, and often the original source image / artist are given credit.

Conversely, a swipe is a shortcut, a solution to a problem using another person's ingenuity to resolve a panel design, difficult layout, storytelling problem, etc. Unlike the homage, the swipe does not want to be recognized; it wants to be accepted as the artist's own work.

The former still engenders a degree of creativity to put a new spin on an old idea and make it more that just a copy of the original. The latter indicates a lack of creatively.

I thought the cover song analogy was particularly apt -- taking the familiar, but making it your own. More importantly, paying royalties and giving credit to those whose creative work you are building upon.

But the allusion is relevant for another reason not yet discussed: What constitutes plagiarism (to which any discussion of swipes must turn, ultimately)? As George Harrison found out, three notes, if they are the right three notes (as learned in the "He's So Fine / My Sweet Lord" lawsuit). I think swipes have an equally low threshold when they are so obvious.

Finally, I was reading one of the TwoMorrows publications that featured a two-page spread with nearly 100 comics that have the “Crisis 7” pose, dating back to the 1940s and carrying through to today. It’s a heavily used image through the history of the medium. But it would be nice of someone looked back a little further and recognized that Michelangelo’s “Pieta” outdates them all…

Jesus Garcia wrote: JB has often said that he felt his art is not big enough for Thor (I disagree) but can we not infer from his opinion that there is some "bigness" in the Kirby style/vision itself that is essential to Thor?

Sure, but it's one thing to try to match the grandeur.  It's another to try to match the linework.  (I thought Walt Simonson did a pretty good job of doing the first, while avoiding the second.)

"The famous Byrne lower lip shine on women was  a favorite of mine"

So famous, I have no clue what you are talking about lol

Yeah, you might be right about my standing as a Jack Kirby fan. I'll have to reflect on it. Thing is, I'm a fan of the artist, the storyteller, AND The Man.

I wonder ... I wonder what Kirby would say about Scioli.

Maybe it's just my reading, but from the views expressed in the Jack Kirby Collector and some interviews I've come across youtube, I kinda think Kirby would be flattered. He would have a feeling that his work, and the love of it, has influenced. Imagine if one of his kids would be carrying on the Kirby style instead of Scioli: would that be more palatable? In fact, isn't it what is going on with Blondie right now? I might be wrong there.

Also, bear in mind that Scioli is not saying that his stuff is as good or better than Kirby's but that he loves the material so much that he just feels the need to dish it out. He was doing this well before he went professional so it's not strictly about the money.

In my understanding, the Image Seven were the beneficiaries of a Marvel marketing machine that was on overdrive in the late 80's / early 90's. The purpose of marketing is to portray product as something better than it actually is. IMO, most of us fans bought into the Marvel lie, that these guys were the future of comic books.

I think they did the right thing for themselves. They struck out on their own, hijacked that marketing "momentum" from Marvel and have sustained themselves to this day. If they didn't, Marvel would have replaced them with another crop of implausible superstars, sooner or later.