It never should have been copyrighted in the first place. When you run for public office, you give up certain rights, and one of them is copyrighting your image or controlling who gets to use the image. At the same time, individuals and corporations should not be allowed to copyright the politician’s image, either. It should be in the public domain.

it makes a great dart board

I thought as long as the image is altered in some way, it doesn’t infringe on copyright laws. Is this true?

It should read “DOPE” if you ask me. The only ones who disagree are those still smoking the HOPIUM!

The image has to be altered beyond a certain amount so you cant tell what the original image was.
It IS copyroght just due to the very fact it was created. Copyright starts at the moment of creation, therefore this IS a copyrighted image.

Obama gave up some of HIS rights to HIS image. The photographer did NOT give up any of his rights to images he produces or the ability to make a living from taking them.

At the very least the photographer should have been asked if he’d consent to the usage of his image, which he may of been fine with as long as a profit wasnt made from his work as is the case here.

Think about it. You create something only to have somebody change its color and then are able to market it without having to give you some sort of payment?

I don’t think so.

The image itself will be in public domain at, i think, 70 years after the photographers death.

Looks to me as if it’s the same pic! It’s so easy to manipulate in Photoshop. Nice try. Why don’t you use some of the money from the painting and help stimulate the economy…….

Pretty fed up with it all

George

Seeing as how Fairey did this poster in the Soviet Realist style, the notion of intellectual property rights on the part of an individual is ironic at best.

Obama as the New Soviet Man — somehow fitting…

Public figure and significant variation from the photo, no copyright violation.

Of course it is copyright infringement. The people saying Obama is a public figure are confusing the photographers copyright with his need for a model release. Newsworthy events or figures do not require a model release. you are free publish YOUR works of them; however, from the moment the image is snapped, the copyright belongs to the photographer or his employer. the exception is when a military person takes the photograph, then there is no copyright attached.

Stealing is stealing. Whether it be mp3 songs or internet images or taking a picture of someone else’s photograph. you may wish it were in the public domain, but unless the copyright holder declares it such, it remains copyright protected.

Honorable men would admit their mistakes and move on. dishonorable ones try to get public emotions involved and play the sweet, innocent, little guy routine when they are simply fighting to protect big bucks or fame they made off of stolen intellectual property.

Despise those that pretend to be creative by stealing other peoples work. Unless of course, you also find Biden’s hostory of plagiarism just fine for the masses.

i find it amusing that P-D is conducting a poll on the issue. As if the general public is qualified to determine copyright law. Not even the majority of lawyers can intelligently comment. The poll is meaningless, and attempts to subvert the judicial process with popular opinion.

The “artist” admitted using the photo. That is not in question.

The photo enjoys copyright protection the moment it is snapped. That is not in question.

The only question remaining is whether a bunch of lawyers can sweet talk a judge into giving them some elbow room for the eventual appeal. What a waste of public funds having this one going to court. The judge should have tossed the “artist” out on his ear.

btw, any fool in photoshop can make such an image in seconds using the right filters, then changing the colors, and those fools will think themselves artists and creative for doing so.