I only put up the pic to save 5 responses going "what's so controversial?"
I think the first part of the GP argument was, "if something is old, tired, worn-out, nobody will miss it, go ahead and use it." Like '50s advertising and stuff. What happened here was a very recent print from a respected artist got completely aped.
I think the second part was, "if you're gonna use work like it was clip-art, then be an artist about it. Bring something new to the table." This poster took a bigass rock in the sky and created...a bigass rock in the sky.
Third was an argument about making art vs. plagiarizing. The designer of this poster said "I made it" like a dozen times, implying the work was all his, at one point he was saying only that in his repsonses, but eventually clarified with "if I didn't exist neither would this poster." Which doesn't mean a whole lot.
Apparently he has a bad rep on GP, I have no idea about that. Guess I don't read GP enough, which is probably good.
If anyone is unclear about what I'm talking about above, maybe you should first go talk to your Friendly Local Gigposter Artist. Failing that, here's an example of what can be done when a talented designer chooses to work with source material:
EB for that poster: