Photo: Mannie Garcia - © 2006 The Associated Press - Art: Shepard Fairey

Incredible.
See imbroglio, the famous designer, artist and illustrator Shepard Fairey admits to lying in court and tried to destroy evidence in an attempt to defend the action in U.S. courts that the AP (Associated Press) had initiated against him for copyright infringement . Thus, the AP reinforces its lawsuit against Fairey.
The Pixel Pictura had tried to unravel this story in January, look here (original image with metadata).
I will explain, the Associated Press is a cooperative that produces, acquires and licenses text and images to the world press, in this case, the AP bought the renowned photojournalist Mannie Garcia licensing rights of the image (a photo) of Barak Obama , so the copyright passed to the AP, not Mannie, Fairey, without knowing the author, appropriated the image and created the famous poster "Hope", which helped elect Obama.
The problem is that "if appropriate", according to Fairey, could be a legitimate act based on the right of the "Fair Use" , he modified and painted the picture enough to turn it into an icon, which many people, including Andy Wharol , had done in the past. But the AP did not like it, and threatened to sue Fairey.

Marilyn by Andy Warhol

When Fairey was threatened, in turn joined a lawsuit against the AP in February, saying he had not used that image, but a similar, and the AP countered by suing the artist in March, responding:
1 -) which was a picture of Mannie yes, and
2 -) even if not, Fairey could not have it changed, according to one of the principles of the AP: "AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way. "
What happened next was a shame; Fairey lied to defend his version, deleted the original files, and only publicly admitted that this week, withdrawing its lawsuit against the AP and against Mannie.
Fairey's statement can be seen here and here .
How can it happen? Greed? Lawyers malicious? Process industry?
Many lawyers argue the position of the AP, many artists defend Fairey, Mannie few care about the photographer.
What is at stake, it is apparent that the simple act of shooting turned into a real danger.
If the photographer gives his rights, is always at a loss if it preserves its copyright often does not sell the photo, and you're shooting people, people, is better put your cards in the drawer, because without authorization or dog, or building can be more photographed.
Tale a curious case, a famous studio in Sao Paulo photographed people who exhibited in a themed event, and who were willing to pose for their lenses voluntarily. The photos had nothing that could embarrass or denigrate the volunteers were simply posed portraits. 90% of the photographed a simple authorization signed a model release basic, but with a few there was no time for that. Well, one of the photos was seen as a thumbnail on the Internet by the photographed without release, and the studio has been prosecuted for lack of License for Use of Picture. The amount requested, exorbitant, enough so that the photographed never have to work in life. The studio, if convicted, breaks, goes bankrupt.
Is it fair? Who ultimately benefits from this? Martin Parr in his interview on MIS of St. Paul, when asked said he never asked anyone model release, and that was never prosecuted for this reason, adding that in Europe there was this concern, which he called "American" .
My conclusion as a photographer is that yes, we are experiencing paranoia often promoted by lawyers, and completely away from our customs and habits, imposed, and that harms both those processes (often us photographers) as to who is prosecuted disproportionately (ask a million for a photo 3 × 4 at the bottom of improperly published neighborhood newspaper seem totally absurd).
I just sue who use my image deliberately and blatantly to make big money, trying to trick me. Not if it's used in the model portfolio on your site, Orkut or some kid who I think of honor and knows no law. It makes no sense.
And just accept being sued if he used the image of the models I photograph deliberately and blatantly to make big money, trying to deceive them. Not in my portfolio, or promoting the girls in my blog.
It is common sense, of course, and should always be thinking this way.
Or am I deluding myself?