Aims, Ends, and Creative/Intellectual 'Property'

2.
A lot of this Maggie issue brings to mind for me a pretty basic concept of rhetoric: aims, or even ends. If Maggie's photo had been used from a protest in an article showcasing effective student protests on campus without her permission, I doubt Maggie would be upset about it. But, since the school completely ignored the context of the picture and therefore the rhetorical aims, it makes sense to me that Maggie would be upset in this use of it. For this "commons culture" as discussed in the article, I think taking aims and ends into consideration would be a large part of what is at stake. Individuals rhetorical aims should remain intact when used with other creative projects; a picture of someone eating a vegan hotdog at a PETA event should not be used to promote a barbecue cook off, or something like that. This is a primary concern for me, and it should be enforced within this "commons culture". Another primary concern in this culture is the right to privacy. This is difficult to enforce because you can't always have someone give you consent for a photo taken at an event or public area. Ridolfo and Rife's rebuttal to this issue deals with photo-journalist, and how taking pictures of an event relates to their own individual free speech. This seems like a very convoluted issue to me, and I am honestly surprised more issues involving this do not come up more often. Back to Aristotle's aims and ends, these primary concerns can become secondary if users of the creative commons understand the meanings of these concepts, and respect them. Generally, people participating in something they believe in will be consensual when something of theirs is used in a similar context.