"Maggie" and Rhetorical Velocity

#2

The case of “Maggie” as examined by Ridolfo and Rife in their case study illustrates a curious case in which Michigan State University used the image of a student without her permission in multiple contexts. (Ridolfo and Rife 223) The dilemma not only lies in the fact that they did not seek her permission once but also in that the image was appropriated in the sense that it was lifted from it’s original context and used in such a way that it’s rhetorical velocity was thwarted. 

Rhetorical velocity would be the key word that best exemplifies the curiosities of Maggie’s case. This term refers to “a strategic concept of delivery in which a rhetor theorizes the possibilities for the recomposition of a thext (e.g. media release) based on how s/he anticipates how the text might later be used”. (Ridolfo and Rife 229) Maggie and the protestors anticipated the images of them to be used to further their protest and its goals. They did not expect for Maggie's picture to be publicized on university brochures. The image of Maggie was not intended to be used as a university advertisement, the context was removed. The image had actually been taken at a protest in which her and others were rallying for MSU to join the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC) (Ridolfo and Rife 224-25). 

However, the law does not account for public image in public space, “the argument is very strong that she little right to privacy” (Ridolfo and Rife 231). Furthermore, arguing with a stance focused on privacy only complicates the matter. Maggies’ rhetorical velocity intended for her to be in a public space to make her stance known as a protester pushing for WRC membership so how is the use of her image a violation of her rights in that sense if she did intend to be in the public space? The law does not account for context. Could there be way in which it does? This is what Creative Commons attempts to do. Creative Commons allowed for creators to attach licenses to their work that dictate how it can be used. (Ridolfo and Rife 236) There are laws for creators but not exactly for the subjects of their work. Because, perhaps MSU could have been held accountable if Maggie had taken the image herself and then they used it. (Ridolfo and Rife 237)

The law does also not account for the conception that humans could have property rights to their own bodies, it is unclear how ownership functions in this vein and it’s complicated. (Ridolfo and Rife 231) Thus illustrating another way in which the usage of the “Maggie” image is a dilemma, it was a digital image of a human body. How far does the ownership of human bodies extend? Am I only entitled to my physical, corporeal form? It appears to be that way in this case study. Clearly, someone can just take a picture of me and use it how they please. But the reappropriation of images can be problematic because if taken out of context they can be used maliciously. If MSU had taken Maggie’s image and placed in a slanderous context would then the law be able to protect her under that guise? But not because she has ownership of her own image? What’s weird is that it’s permissible because she is not presented as herself but as just another student as “her identity is not the rhetorical focus” and is protected by a sort of right to publicity (Ridolfo and Rife 235).