Agreed. I feel the same way about auto-focus.
From the FAQ:
How far can this telescope see?
A: ONE STEP BEYOND!
>> "It's my assertion that the unique features which make a photograph have been almost entirely removed - transformed into an image which could very well be found to be nearly identical to a frame of a TV clip of the same - or even another - speaking engagement the (now) President has given over the last 2 years."
If that's true then it should have been easy for Fairey to find some pubic domain image to use. If I take someone else's code for something I could have written but didn't feel like it, that's potentially bogus. If I then disavow any knowledge of the original coder until pressed,(as Fairey did) that's pretty dishonest. There existed a system where Fairey could have licensed the image if he wanted. He didn't bother. He didn't want to share any credit. If the original photograph contributed nothing at all to the final piece, then it never needed to be used in the first place. It's clear to me that *something* of the original photo remains in the final piece -- and as such the original photographer deserves *something* for it. Be it credit, a fee or whatever.
>>Yes, the photograph is copyright, but the content - Obama looking up in a button down shirt and a tie - is so generic as to be reduced to almost "factual" information when translated into the poster.
If that's truly the case, then why would Fairey have needed to use the photo at all? If it is generic, why did he use it? Why wouldn't he use his magic artist skillz to create some equally lifelike pose without anyone else's photo? I understand the majority of Slashdot doesn't view photography as a creative art with any intrinsic value. But, if the photo has no value then don't use it. If the original photo adds nothing at all to the "essence" of the final work then Fairey shouldn't have needed it in the first place.
Work expands to fill the time available. -- Cyril Northcote Parkinson, "The Economist", 1955