Robin Thicke is a prime example, he actually has little to no creativity. His only two songs that are good were "inspired" by musical genius before him. The bottom line is that people who use past works as an homage are profiting off them. The last time I handed something in at high school that was "inspired" by someone else's work got me an F!
I might be wrong in saying that all art thefts have been motivated by the financial or prestige gains, but it seems that way. I have not seen or heard of many scenarios when the theft of art has not been influenced by financial or societal factors, and purely based on respect of the artwork.
There are so many works of art out there and taking them has nothing to do with pay homage. If you are stealing a canvased painting and then selling it you are just trying to make money and that has nothing to do with paying homage to the artist. make new art and give it hints of what the artist you like has in their painings
Art generally is not stolen with the intent of keeping the piece, it is stolen with the intent of selling it to the highest bidder. For this reason, it is not an act of homage, it is a greedy act whose sole basis is to make money. If it was otherwise, the thieves would keep the art.
It's an act of thinking that something is pretty and worth a lot of money, so it would be awesome to steal it and parlay it into cash or social status.
People who want to pay homage to particular pieces of art make copies, dedications, or use that particular piece as an inspiration for their own work. They don't run around snatching things that don't belong to them.
I mean, if I steal a candy bar, am I paying homage to Hershey?
To think that art theft as an act of homage is a euphemistic way to minimize a criminal act. One can easily show their love of a piece of artwork through legal means. To steal someone's hard work and pride is a selfish and illegal course of action. It is also worth mentioning the economic impact of doing so. Art is not free.