Comments on: On The Rights of Molotov Man

By: saxxyb07

saxxyb07 — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:47:46 +0000

I find the idea of the original photographer claiming Garnett’s us of the photo as a infringement for reasons other than monetary extremely interesting. This flows along perfectly as to what we were discussing the other day in class as to whether copyright is just about money. This is an example when the artist actually cares about what the picture meant and what it displayed more so than the monetary collection.

PS. I also read this in Media Crit.

By: cskwak

cskwak — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:29:49 +0000

I read this article a while back for Media Crit as well, and while I certainly see some merit in Garnett’s artistic experiment of decontextualizing I felt she seemed more interested in claiming some kind of new and original artistic endeavor all as her own. Her argument, and especially that mention of “who own’s the rights to this man’s struggle,” appeared more like a deflection and a bit too defensive… especially in light of Meisalas’ only request being a credit.

By: ChelseaLo

ChelseaLo — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 04:29:28 +0000

When I originally read this article I felt that Garnett’s copying of Susan Meisalas’ photo was wrong because of the way it decontexualized the man in the photo.

Now, seeing it from a copyright point of view I think that Garnett was probably in the wrong because even though she was exercising her artistic vision through copying the image, she wasn’t really exercising her freedom of speech or making a political point about the photo. She also blatantly did not give credit to the author or the subject.

The article made me feel like Garnett’s artistic vision and legal standing were misguided.