Like the spoken word, an image may also be taken out of
context. This is especially true in the case of Maggie Ryan, a Michigan State
University student protestor whose photograph was taken and then remixed. When
we create something, it’s for a purpose. And if someone takes your creation and
remediates it, more often than not your works original purpose has changed, and
the new product now belongs to the one remixing. Without Maggie’s permission,
the university ironically uploaded her photo of protesting the school onto
their website and repurposed it with an added caption and different backdrop. This raises legal, ethical, and personal
concerns; many of which evolve from the “commons” culture, where “what is or
once was owned can be renowned by another” (236).
Providing arguments from each and every side, Ridolfo’s and Rife’s concerns can be traced in
their chapter “Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright: A Case Study on Strategies of
Rhetorical Delivery.” Most importantly, Ridolfo and Rife focus on who has the
upper hand. Unfortunately, the university being as huge as it is has the most
power. As pointed out by the authors, if this were a case involving a much
smaller organization, their guilty act of violating Maggie’s privacy would have
been appropriately handled, but by arguing that the student was aware of the
photographer’s presence at the protest, “the argument that she had any
reasonable expectation of privacy would be weak” (231). Rhetorical velocity can’t
be ignored and must always be accounted for, I agree, but the possibilities are
endless and nearly unfathomable. The way that the university reappropriated and
delivered the photo of Maggie is unethical.
You say that Michigan State University was unethical in their use of the photograph of Maggie Ryan on their website, but who determines ethics? In the photo, Maggie was protesting against the university in a way that was specifically designed to gain media coverage. Obviously, the protest was successful. Maggie had her photo taken and that photo helped in remedying the cause that she was fighting for. She won. The photo served its ethical purpose.
ReplyDeleteYes, the university reused the photo in a completely different context, giving it a different purpose but, did that really hurt anyone? If you look at the interview with Maggie Ryan in the chapter, she herself doesn't even seen that upset by the whole thing. She didn't do anything to try and take the photo down.
In its re-purposed state, the photograph depicts the university as a place where students have a good time on campus. Is this a lie? Probably not. Was Maggie having a good time in the photograph? Probably. Was she on campus? Yes. The photograph speaks for itself. The context was changed to give it a different meaning from its original use but that doesn't mean the second meaning derived from the photograph wasn't true. You are right that it is ironic considering the fact that she was protesting against the university in the photograph, but I think that point is mute. She was still enjoying herself during the protest and she was still on campus, which is clear in the photograph and emphasized by the university. They may have omitted the fact that she was protesting but they did not lie and say that she wasn't either.
I honestly don't think the power and size of MSU has anything to do with their success in using this photograph. Anyone could have done this in the same way and the situation would not change. Context will give a substance meaning, but the substance itself still carries the truth. What I'm saying is, the picture clearly depicts Maggie in the snow on campus. That cannot be compromised and it was not compromised. The context given by both parties - the original journalist and the university - did not fabricate anything.