One could argue that it doesn't. Not necessarily what I think, but enough to make a difficult case out of it if it ever came to court. In particular, the "amou

One could argue that it doesn't. Not necessarily what I think, but enough to make a difficult case out of it if it ever came to court. In particular, the "amount and substantiality of the portion used" is "the whole damn thing". As far as I know, each photograph counts as an individual work. The defense of "parody" is pretty strong, but as far as I know only applies if the subject of the parody is the copyrighted work itself. In this case the copyrighted work (a fairly neutral sort of photo) has been used to parody a third party (Mr Obama) who isn't the owner of the copyright. It's like Weird Al: his version of "Beat It" is a parody of "Beat It" so he didn't need permission, but his version of "American Pie" was actually a parody of "Star Wars", so he did.