Both of these cases deal with paintings, not photographs. Both of these cases deal with trademark infringement claims, not copyright infringement, and both specifically pertain to the provisions of the Lanham Act, which deals with trademark, not copyright. In a general sense, both courts acknowledge the difficulty of balancing First Amendment rights against intellectual property rights, including right of publicity. In the only Supreme Court case covering this issue the court held that the First Amendment did not shield the defendant from liability for violating the plaintiff's right of publicity (Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 97 S.Ct. 2849, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 (1977).
So what does all this mean?
This thread was primarily about Zazzle prohibiting the sale of photos of racecars, and the person who started the thread's belief that Zazzle differentiated selling photo prints from posters, prohibiting the former and permitting the latter. It is my opinion that whether it's called a photo or called a poster does not matter if it's the same thing, namely a photo. It remains my opinion that various parties depicted, and various parties whose property is depicted in the example at hand, namely a photo of a race car driving on a race track, may have standing to object to the commercial exploitation of certain things that appear in that photo, including intellectual property they own, and in the case of people, their likeness. It's also my opinion that a First Amendment defense to some of these claims would be a serious stretch. Contrary to your statement that the cases you refer to are "very similar" to the subject matter of this thread, they are in fact significantly different. In one case you cite a central question came down to the use of Tiger Wood's name in the work of art, and in fact it was not used in the actual painting, which certainly undermined the plaintiff's (ie the company holding the rights to the Tiger Woods name) claim that the painting and prints produced from it violated the Latham Act. In the second case you cite the plaintiff, the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, sought to protect "an allegedly unregistered trademark based on a theory of trade dress which is predominantly a color." In other words, the defendant's paintings showed football players with uniforms that were the same or similar in color to uniforms worn by U. of Alabama players. In both of these cases the paintings (that's paintings - not photographs) did not even contains the actual trademarks owned by the plaintiffs. That is obviously very different from photographs that do contain the actual trademarks and other intellectual property of someone other than the photographer.
As this thread illustrates, the law and judicial system are comprised of endless shades of gray and very little that's black and white. While the various exceptions to copyright law exist, and exist for good reason, the protections the law affords is also there and it also exists for good reason.
There's one more aspect of this discussion worth mentioning. Many a photographer has created a photograph of a car or some other thing, the design of which is owned by someone else, and then asserted an unconditional right to sell copies of that photograph. The reasoning is that they created the photo and they should therefore have the right to exploit its' value regardless of the fact that the photo depicts something that someone else created and owns. What happens then if another person comes along and creates a photograph of the first photographer's photograph of that object? For all practical purposes the photo of the photo could be very close to an exact duplicate of the first photo. Does the second photographer have unlimited rights to sell the photo? After all, he created it. You can find legal precedent on both sides of this question but a legal discussion is not my goal here. I just want to point out to photographers and other creatives that if they would object to anyone "appropriating" their work then they should, in my opinion, try to show the same level of respect for the work of others that they would like others to show them.