The MotionGrapher website posed an interesting poll about Shephard Fairey's infamous Obama poster and Milton Glaser's critical review. Another critique of Fairey's work is on artist Mark Vallen's blog. Earlier, the New York Times published an article, indicating that Fairey's suing the Associated Press to combat copyright infringement. "The suit asks the judge to declare that Mr. Fairey’s work is protected under fair-use exceptions to copyright law, which allow limited use of copyrighted materials for purposes like criticism or comment."
I think it depends upon the intention of the artist, whether or not the work is a commentary (falling under fine arts arena) or promotion/advertisement (commercial arts). Public figures are subject to scrutiny and critique--political cartoons and satire are evidence of this--but money always complicates matters. Andy Warhol displayed familiar faces and icons in his work--it was a social commentary on popular culture, but if you look at his commercial work, it was original. With Fairey's work, he started out in graffiti/street art. Much like the tattoo realm, street arts sometimes take artwork from their original context and places it into a different medium, with or without the original artist's consent. It's the nature of the beast and hard to control. From one point of view, it is plagiarism, but in another view, it's imitation and sometimes viewed as flattery. For fine arts, there shouldn't be a limitation on creation/expression as it's personal and an expression of one's self, but with commercial arts, there should be greater sensitivity to copyrights.
