I can recall three similar pictures, though a few moments on Google only turns up two.
But not for the people in our picture. These people are captured at a joyous moment.
For some, that kind of thing is insufficiently aggressive. Orwell, for example--writing about Dickens, not Rockwell, but I think it applies equally to Rockwell--said, ""His whole 'message' is one that at first glance looks like an enormous platitude: if men would behave decently, the world would be decent." Orwell contrasts such an approach with, roughly put, a more revolutionary approach. Clearly, despite Dickens's blistering attacks on British society, he's no revolutionary. Orwell, I think, more or less chides him for that. Others might agree. Such people would no doubt wish to chide Rockwell, as well, for he, like Dickens, is no revolutionary. I'm not sure, however, when being a revolutionary became essential to being a great artist. If we let Rockwell be Rockwell, instead of wishing he were something else, we're going to do much better at understanding him and appreciating him.
Related to this post: Jane Allen Petrick's book Hidden in Plain Sight argues that Rockwell always never painted a purely white America (as is so often said). She makes a convincing case, and uses Rockwell's picture of the repair of the Statue of Liberty as a kind of special case study to support her claim that those making these kinds of remarks about Rockwell are not bothering to look at his art first.
UPDATE 3/5/15 PM: The Norman Rockwell Museum just shared this story on facebook. Maurice Peterson is having a show at a gallery in Lenox, MA, featuring some "reimagined" Rockwells. Unfortunately, Peterson makes the very mistake that Petrick's book so effectively attacks. Here's what I mean. The story reads, in part, "Growing up in Queens, Peterson imagined himself in Rockwell's country images. 'But the only time you saw someone black was in the controversial images,' he said."