How do you think Photojournalism would work if they needed releases for the images?

So what? Let’s forget a moment that judges, oligarchs, police, soldiers, and politicians flout the law basically at will. 

So there are legal consequences – no dispute there. 
The implication that there has been some breach of moral conduct is dissapointing. 
And watching people slink away from Shepard’s side is disappointing. 
Of course it’s same people who wore his HOPE shirts and bought his posters so they could be up-in-da-club with the street art crowd… I was one of them to an extent – so many of us drank that Obama Koolaid, including the Shep!

Don’t think he’s aware of it? He put his name and his rep (those take time to build) on the line to make a change for the positive, and at the end of the day, the only ones who benefited were the Obama campaign and the writhing corpse of old-world media. 

All I’m saying is, it’s easy to kick the guy when he’s down and point the finger at him for his actions, but as any reader of this site knows, when you get caught up in the US court system and your ass is on the bench and the chips are all stacked against you legally AND financially, you might just panic and make a few mistakes. 

And those are the times that you will need your supporters the most.

I am bothered by two things: The first issue I have is that he traced the image.

Representational art is quite commonly traced from photographs. It’s how you treat that outline that counts. Only non-artists kvetch about the purity of free-hand drawing.

The entire argument could not be a better illustration of why copyright law has become laughably irrelevant and restrictive.

Also, it would be pretty badass if Obama granted a pardon, considering the success of the poster for his campaign. But I doubt that will be necessary as surely Fairey’s lawyers will appeal and if there’s any justice they’ll eventually overturn the conviction (or at least commute the sentence).

Vindictive prosecution? What? Fairey did everything he could to deceive the court. If you don’t believe in the court system, ok that’s your deal, but lying to the court is a serious offense.

Except that the whole case was stupid in the first place. His crime of lying to the court about this is a lot like resisting arrest when you’re being arrested for no good reason. It’s legal theater to keep people afraid.

not saying it’s right, but if you’ve ever been processed as a teen and a public defender was your option, then you learn to go for self in these situations.  dunno Fairey’s history, but he was writing graf and stenciling from a young age.  yeah, he got over and he does OK for himself now, but these things cannot be unlearned.

from a legal standpoint, he shouldn’t've done it; but I’m just saying, if I’m right in this analysis, then I understand why.

EDIT: power -> privilege

The other part of me say, “Farley is kind of a dick, and this isn’t the first time his remix is too close to copying. Meh.”

I.e., if Obama takes his own self-portrait in a mirror with an iPhone, the he might have a copyright in that particular photograph (because he took it).  However, he can’t generally claim a “copyright” in any photograph of his face taken by someone else.

There was a hullabaloo about this issue five years ago, when a well-known internet troll, Michael Crook, tried to block people from using his picture on the interest by issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices.  He claimed that he had a “copyright” in any photograph or video of his face.  He was essentially laughed out of court, and had to make an apology to the world for his stupidity as a settlement.

“Michael Crook apologizes to internet for DMCA abuse”
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/14/michael-crook-apolog.html 

“DMCA Abuser Apologizes for Takedown Campaign”
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2007/03/14

“You Can’t Copyright Your Own Face, Dumbass”
http://blozor.blogspot.com/2007/02/to-copyright-our-own-face.html