I'm willing to give that Harry Bliss guy the benefit of the doubt, as I haven't paid any attention to his work and don't know whether he's made any such reference before.

Maybe he thought the style difference would be enought to tip people off that this was an "homage" or "cultural reference". But gag cartoons constantly reference pop culture. I've seen comic strips with guest appearances copyright "somebody else", but as long as they're played for the joke, it should be alright, shouldn't it?

I'm much more forgiving of "artistic similarities" in parodies, satires or gag cartoons than in "serious" work. And I think that's how it should be.

This is the message I sent to the guy selling the Batman / Captain America swipe on Ebay......

You call this an "original" piece, and it is not. It is a swipe of work John Byrne did for the BATMAN / CAPTAIN AMERICA book. I see no credit given to Byrne in your description for this piece. "Original" means just that...ORIGINAL..not a copy or swipe of someone elses work. I would appreciate your input regarding this matter. Doc

Here is the response I finally received....

Sir,

you are absolutely right,I try to change the description to something like Roy Liechtenstein did,"a vechile for inspiration and admiration"

Thank you for bringing this to my attention,

Anders

I replied to him.....

Thanks for your reply. Of course, Lichtenstein was nothing but a swipe artitst as well.  Doc