"Lines of Flight," or, The Rhizomatic Connections I Made Across and Among Your Blog Posts

Dear All,

You did some great work on the blog last Thursday, and I saw some very useful conversation threads begin to emerge that I'll draw attention to here, as we reflect on "genre" and "rhetorical velocity" from last week, and as we think about "hypertext" and "metapictures" in the upcoming week. 

Key Critical Questions You Managed to Uncover

I saw several of you uncover one key critical question in Good Copy, Bad Copy: What is it that needs to be "protected"? What spaces are necessary for "new" kinds of creativity?

Appropriation, amplification, & the threat to good intentions of the commons

Ridolfo and Rife’s “Rhetorical Velocity” explores all of the perspectives in establishing a creative commons available for public use.  

Queries about Rhetorical Velocity and its Connection to Genre

As we advance into thinking about what it means to create original text, Ridolfo and Rife's case study of Maggie from Michigan State University complicates the notion that one owns a text, not in the sense of dual authorship, but in the sense of inherent rights to one's "own thing." Here, they demonstrate the "distance" that a rhetorical velocity can travel between two points, by showing how Maggie's highly scheduled, planned rhetoric in the snow was appropriated and recomposed for a new delivery and a new rhetorical outcome than predicted with Maggie and her peers' initial rhetorical velocity.

Pretty Fun to Cut Stuff Up

In the span of my years as an EWM major here at FSU, I have of course taken the required class, Writing and Editing in Print in Online. This class, an introduction to the major, roughly skims the surface of what it means to fairly use other texts in the course of making your own. Remix, remediation, appropriation - all of these terms are now an integral part of the text making process with the rise of the digital age, and we are demanded of to think of how this changes our view of copyright laws, intellectual property, and what really defines a text. However, the texts I was introduced to as a young freshman provided a two dimensional view of copyright: "Copyright is a bad and outdated idea that will not work in the digital age." After being exposed to Good Copy, Bad Copy and the ideas of Lawrence Lessig, it is clear that a three dimensional and well-rounded look at copy-right is in order, not to remove it, but to utilize it to inspire creation and protect the rights of creators while updating it for a digital age that holds the ability for texts not possible prior to our current technology. Good Copy, Bad Copy facilitates information about copyright in a way that gives the viewer a global perspective on copyright and the way it is working in our world today.

De minimus and creativity versus the industry

“Good Copy, Bad Copy,” documents various perspectives revolving around rhetorical velocity, which Ridolfo and DeVoss define as “the strategic theorizing for how a text might be recomposed (and why it might be recomposed) by the third parties, and how this recomposing may be useful or not to the short or long-term rhetorical objectives of the rhetorician.” (Ridolfo & Rife, 240)  

Question 2 Defining Recomposition

Question 2

Rhetorical Velocity, Delivery, Appropriation, and Recomposition

To start off “Rhetorical velocity is a strategic concept of delivery in which a rhetor theorizes the possibilities for the recomposition of a text (e.g., a media release) based on how s/he anticipates how the text might later be used. (229)” Basically this is when you take something which had different purposes and intentions to start off and then it can be created into something totally different.  When it comes to Maggie we see how she was involved in a protest for the WRC and how the pictures taken for a particular cause and then used by Michigan for many different forms of advertising.  I found it really interesting when the school took the picture and remixed it by cutting and pasting her in front of a more recognizable landmark on campus.  They used Maggie’s image, which had a purpose at first then was used for different purposes by someone else without the original permission. 

With these terms you can really grasp how one can take something and create something totally different.  You see how different forms of delivery and appropriation achieve recomposistion.  The term that stood out to me the most was Rhetorical velocity.  I was shocked because I did not see how this is premeditated.  I think that this image was not specifically intended to be used in the different formats but it happened the way it did.  I do not think you can have a remix culture without the use of all four of these terms.  You are able to see the intent of something in the original format and then create something totally different with different delivery methods and appropriation means.  The case study with Michigan really brings all this to life and gives us an idea and an understanding of how this happens.

Good Copy, Bad Copy

Good Copy, Bad Copy

            After watching this video I was really sparked by music and how really music just builds off each other.  Music today is not original.  We take beats, ideas, lyrics, etc. from previous works because it is what we can relate to and we then make it relevant again.  At first when I was watching it and Girl talk was on it, which really made me understand exactly what the film was going to be about.  I watched for introduction to rhetoric a movie on hulu basically about the same concept of copyright laws and it was with girl talk as well.  This whole concept of death of the author, I think is very prevalent in music as well.  In todays society I feel that everything in life has been ventured and created that now today all we do is make things better by redoing them and creating something different from the original.   This concept is really something that has been done for years with intellectual property such as new technology, games, books, phones, really anything because it takes the ideas of something previous and re works them to make them better.  In Good Copy, Bad Copy you are introduced to Girl Talk and he talks about his experience with music and copyright laws and how he creates his music (2:11).  This part really interested me because he takes these original songs that we know love and adore and “mashes” them together to create something original in our eyes called a mash-up.  These “New” old songs are works of art because people such as girl talk are taking and created something different which I feel is art.  I do understand the concept of copyright laws and intellectual property and money but people do this everyday in all kinds of stuff and do not seek money.  A good example of this was in the movie when they talk about “The Grey Album” by Danger Mouse. (9:58)  I found it really interesting when he talks about money because he said he never made a single penny off the album and neither did Jay Z or The Beatles.  This sparked my interest because basically Danger Mouse did this album because he appreciates art.  He took something everyone liked and didn’t see the same and make it relevant and fun again which is art.  I think that you cannot judge someone on taking previous made things because music is a form of art and creatively which is what Danger Mouse does he takes something and creates something new that nobody has thought of before. 

            Another part of the film that stood out to me was at (29:07) when they are talking about fake DVD’s made and distributed in Nigeria.  The producer says something that is really interesting he says that the fake DVD’s are the same price as the original so in Nigeria it really doesn’t matter.  I feel that this is a good result to controlling money exchange for copyrighted information.  This basically gives the buyer the option to decide who they support which in return lets them decide how they want the money distributed. 

            Overall the movie was really good and really opened my eyes to the grey area in music and technology when it comes to copyright laws.  I feel that these forms of entertainment are art and you cannot put a price or decide on what is original or not when everything is based off previous information. 

Rhetorical Velocity

The term Rhetorical Velocity is really interesting and important. I feel like it's something we've all been aware of but now there's a name and concrete concept for it. In my previous blog post I brought up how an artist may release something that is then used against them or viewed in a different way. This is essentially what Rhetorical Velocity is asking us to be aware of. In Maggies case she was taking images for a protest and years later they were resurfaced and being used in a way that she did not mean for them to be used in.

Artists and Copyright

I've had to visit the notion of "remixes" in many classes in the EWM major. I've looked into musical remixes, text remixes, photoshop, video, etc. For a previous class I read excerpts from Jenkins Convergence Culture, which centered heavily on merging media. When I personally hear the word "remix" I immediately think of visual art. I work heavily as a visual artist using performance and installation art as my mediums. I made a show recently where the walls of the room where covered in Publix ads and magazine pictures. I use music in my shows, sometimes just the looped chorus's of recent pop songs. I also collage a lot in my spare. I made a zeen over Christmas break that was sold a book fair. It was complied of all of my own photograph along with text that I wrote, my friends wrote, other artists had said or written, and some words and images from magazines.

Rhetorical Velocity and its Impact on Genres

2. The terms "rhetorical velocity", "delivery", "appropriation", and "recomposition"  described in the article by Ridolfo and Rife are all connected under the culture and act of remix, however they do differ in their definitions and relationships. The term "rhetorical velocity" is the umbrella under which the other three terms reside. Rhetorical velocity takes into account all possible methods that the text may be reused in the future. The term "delivery" describes the method, media, and vehicle that the text or remixed text is distributed to the mass audience with. Rhetorical velocity takes into account any future developments in delivery and anticipates them in the creation and structure of the text. "Appropriation" deals with the adapting and modification of the text for the new genre. Such changes made during appropriation may involve placing the sampled text into a different context to give new meaning to an audience and may also make it impossible for the audience to tell the original context. Finally, recomposition deals with the structuring and placement of the remixed text and the creation of the new text with it. In Ridolfo and Rife's case study, the biggest issue dealt with was appropriation. Maggie, the MSU student depicted on the school website, was upset at the modifications made to her context from the original picture. Appropriation is often criticized for being biased and can be seen by some as a form of oppression.
    Miller's view of genre would most likely be associated with the term rhetorical velocity. Miller's focus on genre was that new creations determine a new genre. By anticipating future use of current genres, artists can look ahead to seeing their work impact, influence, and even create new genres themselves. Remixing in music has gone from being a way to structure a new song to being an entirely new genre itself, with artists like Girl Talk, Danger Mouse, and Super Mash Bros.

Free is Not Only Better, it is the Future

1. The aspect of Girl Talk's music that I find so fascinating is the improvisation structure it uses. At 11:13, Girl Talk is shown building a song by using some set loops on his computer. I had previously believed that his music was carefully planned out and executed, but it is made in a much looser manner. This brings up the question of copyright in his craft: if his use of copyrighted music on his albums is criticized, should he also be forced to atone for the use of his samples when creating? If a sample was not used on the final product, but was at one point a part of it, does this make it less a part of the project? The act of a remix should include all aspects of that remix. In Girl Talk's case, his use of the art created by others created a new art himself. He has taken texts previously published and made entirely new texts out of them. However, Girl Talk's songs will likely never receive high radio play due to the legal restrictions in the US (his albums being free or "pay what you want" have given him the leeway to avoid creating a lawsuit disaster), but this is not the case in other parts of the world. In Brazil, the copyright laws are much more relaxed, and this seems to be a cultural aspect. DJ Dinho discusses how the artists have started to give much of their recorded music away for free and have decided to seek eventual payment through higher exposure and live shows.
     A culture's differing views can also impact how their country views intellectual property rights. At 50:30, Beto is shown spending an afternoon making a remix to Gnarls Barkley's "Crazy", and that night the song is played to the crowd's acclaim at a block party. Beto hopes that the song will be played on the radio. In Brazil, it seems the culture has caused the artists to bow to the ways of the consumer, which is the opposite of how things were turning out in the USA, at least at the time-the film was made in 2007. I also had not really ever considered what the debate of copyright  can impact in terms of an entire industry. At 33:00, Olivier criticizes the rise of file sharing by saying that the Internet has not been "the great equalizer", when in fact the opposite is true. The Internet has allowed artists to stay independent and distribute their music to a world-wide audience without the need for a label's marketing muscle. This past year, Drake's song "0-100" was nominated for a Grammy. The song was originally put up on the site Soundcloud as a simple track that had no plans to be on any album, and was essentially a throwaway track. If the Internet can cause a song that otherwise never would have seen the light of day to be in the running for music's pinnacle award, then it is much more than "the great equalizer", it is a revolution. Nowadays many artists are content with putting out as much free music as possible in order to make money off of live shows. Some are even turning down major-label deals to stay independent. The Norwegian music producer Kygo has built an incredible fan base off of free remixes released through his website and has so far released only one original song of his own, yet he is headlining many music festivals around the world this year. Hip-hop is another genre where free music has become king; many rappers now put out free to download "mixtapes" which contain songs that a decade ago would have been reserved for studio albums due to their quality and radio play. No rapper is as prolific as California rapper Lil B, who has released 49 mixtapes and five studio albums since 2010. One mixtape, a five gigabyte collection, features 855 songs on it. Lil B continues to be one of the most relevant rappers in the game today, and is constantly touring with live shows, new music being released, and has even had motivational speaking engagements at numerous universities, including MIT and Harvard; some other rappers have had their albums shelved before release due to issues with their labels and fade away into obscurity. Lil B seems to have adapted to the new age of digital music, where free is seen as a right.
     Economics is simple supply and demand, and whichever entity controls the supply and distribution aspects of a market has the power. The textuality associated with art in today's world has gone from being something that can be protected by the creator and is now something that the audience owns instantly. The digital age has taken that power away from the industry and given it to the consumer, thereby redefining the industry itself. Intellectual copyright law will not just need to be adjusted to make creation easier, but in order to preserve the music industry structure at all.

Filing sharing as a right, an infringement, and a societal issue.

There are three pivotal moments in this documentary that allowed me to understand the copyright issue at large: The moment where they discuss the amount of jobs that have been lost, specifically about the shut down of Power records, The moment where they explain the process that goes into making remixed music and how vague the similarities can be, and the moment where they discuss how Nigeria has no piracy laws but still continues to run without the amount of complications we are currently experiencing.

I liked this documentary because instead of resolving the issue they basically just tried to make sense of it. The problem got messier and more complex as the movie went on. I didn't feel this movie truly had a strong stance either way; it was just provided to give viewers a more full bodied understanding of the problems we are currently encountering with file sharing and copyright law. I think they did a great job of illustrating how this issue is harming both sides. Overly stringent copyright legislature can lead to unnecessary restraints on creativity. It could create a marketplace for suing artists and this would dramatically decrease the amount of arts being circulated. But I also enjoyed how they represented the negative sides of file sharing also. How mass consumers are against the music production companies and not the artists individually; however the entire system is hurting everyone involved. It was clear when the distraught women spoke about the shut down of Power Records that this issue was affecting artists and expression on both ends.

But I think what gave me an even more complex under standing of this idea is when they discussed how file sharing functions in Nigeria. They have a perfectly functioning music industry and no need for copy wright laws. This made me think about this issue in terms of culture. It really depicted how this issue is not merely a universal problem or just an inherent occurrence. it depicted that the issues with copy wright infringement is also deep imbedded within our culture as well.  I think over all this piece was really interesting and really gave me a more in depth understanding of the issue at large.

Copyright: The Death of Creativity?

          If I were asked what my favorite genre of music is, undoubtedly I would answer, “alternative remixes.” Some might argue that indeed there is no such thing as an alternative remix genre. Sure, on formal music purchasing sites, such as iTunes, there is no place for such a genre. However, music-sharing websites such as Soundcloud and 8tracks have these genres, along with a seemingly endless amount of other tags, categories, and types to choose from. I personally am partial to the music-sharing website 8tracks because it allows users to create playlists and share remixes, mashups, and covers while also promoting up and coming artists. The amount of creativity and ingenuity I have encountered on this site is so incredibly inspiring to me, even motivating me to create playlists of my own. However, it is blaringly obvious that copyright infringement is not something that is high on anyone’s list when they are creating these remixes and sharing these playlists. To them, it’s about sharing creative content, not worrying to follow the rules of fair use.

The Relevancy of Rhetorical Velocity (Prompt 2)

In Jim Ridolfo and Martine Courant Rife's article "Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright", they argue the role of rhetorical velocity in creations. More than just being in the title, rhetorical velocity functions as the backbone of the article and the definitions of delivery, appropriation, and recomposition (" Rhetorical velocity is a strategic concept of delivery in which a rhetor theorizes the possibilities for the recomposition of a text (e.g., a media release) based on how s/he anticipates how the text might later be used."(229)) In delivery, rhetorical velocity is applied to how a creation is presented, such as whether it will be presented in the public sphere or the private sphere. In appropriation, it helps to consider how an idea will be reinterpreted. In recomposition, rhetorical velocity helps elucidate how a creation can be rearranged and reused.

Rhetorical velocity plays a role in delivery. In this case, the student had to use rhetorical velocity to consider how the delivery of her message affected her message. In Ridolfo and Rife's case study, a student had created a snowball fight outdoors in a public area to draw attention to her cause. A photographer for the university had taken photos of her playing in the snow, and the university had reused the images for admissions advertisements. While the student claimed that she wanted the idea of her cause to spread, she had no concept of how her attempt of drawing attention to it would be used ("Although the desired press coverage of the March 3 action was achieved (see Figure 2), Maggie had no way of anticipating how the university would later use an image of her from the event to promote the Department of Student Life and the university itself." (226-228)) So while her attempt to get her cause noticed worked, because of its delivery in the public sphere, she could not control the deletion of the idea. Rhetorical velocity could have helped the student to consider how to protect her cause's identity and still have it be relevant without having it be reinterpreted for other purposes. In this case, the student would have to consider how to protect her idea. Ridolfo and Rife suggested signs around the area (228), and the student considered creating a free speech area to delivery her message.

Appropriation in rhetorical velocity is relevant. In this case, appropriation refers to how an idea is used, "something" being images or ideas. In this case study, the university had appropriated her image by separating it from the cause and applying it to something else. This was allowed because the student performed the action in a public area (231). The student in this case used rhetorical velocity to reconsider how she could prevent her images and ideas from being used in the wrong way ("Although Maggie never consented to or approved of the university using her image for these large-scale advertising purposes, she talked about what she could have done differently to curtail the appropriation of her image. She says that it might have been “a good idea to have more prominent posters or things with you or have things with you so people know what’s going on.”"(228)) For example, Westboro Baptist Church creates parodies to draw attention to their message. In this case, they reappropriate the songs and transform them into messages of their ideas, and the corporations that they had borrowed from cannot really pursue them to court because they aren't directly changing the songs themselves. However, if WBC took an entire song, didn't change it, and then claimed it was theirs, there would be an issue.

Ridolfo and Rife also consider recomposition in the role of rhetorical velocity. In this case, recomposition is defined as how media can be rearranged and reused. In Ridolfo and Rife's case study, Maggie's images were recomposed by the university to be used for admission advertisements. Rhetorical velocity plays a role in recomposition because one must consider how their composition will be reused once it is issued out into the public. Ridolfo and Rife claim that "In other words, we need to stop thinking about copyright law in terms of what isn’t possible, but also in terms of what is possible—that is, how rhetors can strategically compose for the recomposition of their own intellectual property."(241) Something similar had happened when a mother sued a pro life organization for using her daughter's image in an anti abortion ad. The mother claimed that her daughter's image was recomposed to imply that black families had higher abortion rates. Recomposition, appropriation, and delivery all have their role in rhetorical velocity. They must be considered when creating a work and releasing it to the public, so that the original author's ideas can be maintained while allowing creators to do their work.

The group of key terms are all connected through the protection of the rights of an entity of the creator of an "original" thought. Originality is put into question, as well as whether the creation of an artistic work is a product of a possessable, transferable authorship and how the classification differs if media environment that influenced the creation of the piece. A work, voluntarily or involuntarily entering the public sphere of "the commons" (Rudolfo pg. 236), is being defended as having a right not to be copied, which is limiting creativity.  

I believe the most relevant term in the context of Miller's work is "recomposition". A permission based society would have to find the exigence of the wronged creator greater than that of the constricted artist. If the world really runs on money, or on culture, will be put into question. Can recontextualization in the form of sampling be enough to show distinct authorship? If so, then an artistic, non-permissive society is the goal. Recomposition connects to Miller's "genre" as she mentions there are a multitude of situations that are acted upon with a multitude of other, corresponding "genres". Whether the recomposition of these genres is original thought or predictable and unavoidable, cuts to the core of the copywrite debate. 

So, I have to worry about tomorrow today?

In Maggie Ryan's rhetorical situation, there appeared to be four (4) key factors that weigh her case down. These factors are: rhetorical velocity, delivery, appropriation and recomposition. Though completely different terms, they prove to be closely intertwined. The Maggie Ryan case makes it easier to decipher and tell the difference between the terms and how they are connected. 

Rhetorical Velocity

The Ridolfo and Rife article deals with an activist who had a picture of her used out of context on two occasion following a protest that she was a part of.

Too Quick to Quit

     Something that we are all confident about is that not all whom violate copyright laws will be caught and punished. On very rare occasions do we hear of our peers actually getting in serious legal trouble over breaking copyright laws, especially in regards to music. What the documentary Good Copy, Bad Copy did clarify for me, however, was just how blurred these copyright laws are in our developing technological word that is believed to be in a creative crisis.

     Right off the bat, Dr. Lawrence Ferrara, the Director of New York University’s Music Department, introduces the technique of sampling. At [3:31], attorney Paul V Licalsi explains that taking someone’s recorded beat and then transforming it into something else in the studio, you run the risk of being held in court and being sued for copyright infringement. Around 9 minutes in, DJ Danger Mouse’s Grey Album is used an example for unlawful sampling. Taking Jay Z’s vocals from his Black Album and skillfully fusing it with samples from The Beatles’ White Album, DJ Danger Mouse illegally created his own album for pleasure. Even without the intent to sell it, it still became a huge ordeal for it grew in popularity almost instantly. With the technology available and by only handing out his CD to a few friends, DJ Danger Mouse caught the attention of The Beatles’ publishing company but there was nothing they could about it for his album had already reached a large audience and only continued to be quickly copied and spread. Reaching the end at [57:00], we see the last bit of proof in the documentary that there’s no beating today’s and tomorrow’s technology as Girl Talk remixes a Brazilian remix of a Gnarls Barkley song.

Commons Culture, Copyright, and Creativity

Ridolfo and Rife seem to be primarily concerned with the legality of using a picture of someone without their permission when it is not that person's picture. If the picture is an "orphan work," meaning no  one knows who created it, it is usually considered part of the commons and is able to be appropriated by whoever wants to appropriate it. Some would consider the picture of Maggie to be an orphan work since no one knows who took the photograph, but that line is blurred since the photo is of Maggie and she did not give permission for the school to use her picture. Maggie, however, does not actually have control over how the picture is used because she was not the one who took it and thus, it is not her picture despite being a picture of her.

"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. 

Freeing Music

   This documentary Good Copy, Bad Copy was very similar to another documentary I watched for WEPO called RIP! A Remix Manifesto. Both feature artist Girl Talk and explore the limitations on culture caused by strict copyright laws. An astounding opinion shared by many big production companies is voiced by Bridgeport Music at 7:08 when they express, "The court decided that it's illegal to take anything from a recording...and it's not creative." This ruling is a huge blow for all music genres but especially for rap and hip hop that thrives off of samples. For example, Dr. Dre in his song "100 Miles and Runnin'" sampled a guitar riff from the Funkadelic song "Get Off Your Ass and Jam." The riff is so stretched out that it sounds like a siren in the background of the song, claiming that a creative remastering such as this is not creative and illegal is extremely destructive to the industry as a whole. 

Good copy bad copy (insert punny subtitle here)

#1

(Good Copy Bad Copy, 7:28) “If you sample. You license. Period.” The movement of sampling in 90s hip hop brought up the idea of intellectual property ownership in music because it was the inception of taking music that had already been created, and originally developing something with previous tracks overlaid. There was originality, but within a broader context of music that was

This seems to eliminate the consideration for the degree to which music bears similarity. A point was made by Girl Talk about the fact that people can take the same chord progression and bear the same amount of similarity as a remix but don’t have to worry about legal issues, often because the music was not directly ripped from a recording and was played originally form another instrument by another person and recorded. This does draw some complications in itself, because there have been lawsuits filed for a song having a likeness to the degree that it constitutes “copying”. Most recently, Marvin Gaye’s children recently won a suit against Robin Thicke for copying “Got to Give it Up” on “Blurred Lines”. Some would say that the closeness would constitute sampling. Because of this, copyright law is not necessarily biased towards mixing, but because mixing directly rips form the recording, the entire nature o a remix is predicated upon the likeness of sound from an original track.

(Good Copy Bad Copy, 35:00) If the record companies try to continue in the same business model, it will only slow the development. No matter where a peer-to-peer service is shut down, it will open somewhere else. The people have a problem with paying corporations and won’t hesitate to share files over the internet.

The matter at hand is whether intellectual property is legitimate, and if so, that it follows specific guidelines, whether those are guidelines based on precedent such as material property law, or otherwise, based on conclusions made with consideration to differences in circumstance such as the digital medium. Advocates of strict copyright law concede to the fact that the internet makes it impossible at this point to practically cover all activity, not only because of the sheer volume, but the fact that the activity crosses different countries with different copyright laws.

(Good Copy Bad Copy, 14:00) We recognize we can’t ever stop piracy, and so the accepted solution is to get people in trouble in a sort of scare tactic to minimize file sharing. Producers estimate about $6 bln lost each year because of peer-to-peer file sharing.

Advocates are focused on the proliferation of the creativity associated with mixing music while those against the unlicensed mixing cite not only the precedence of copyright’s limitations in the context of owning what an individual created. Even so, people are both for the proliferation of creativity while also advocating limitation in order to allow that mixing of music, but in a minimal way. 

#2

By having a commons culture, as proposed by Ridolfo and Rife, the commons culture would primarily serve to help the people who have creative work that is either already made and can then be distributed legally for entertainment, a well as opening the cannel for those who would otherwise be inhibited to produce because of copyright law. There are several principles that Ridolfo and Rife cite in opposition to this creative common culture. The “appropriation of images and bodies” (Ridolfo&Rife, 230) is important to identify according to Rife and Ridolfo because it’s so difficult to define the ownership aspect. Legally speaking, the image and likeness of somebody would be considered the property, therefore Maggie would have had to approve the use of an image depicting her, especially or the purposes of promoting something. This would be of primary concern because it most directly involves an individual and negative implications that can sprout form unconsented use of their image and likeness. Additionally, free speech and right to privacy directly concern the individual in concern of defense. The reasonable expectation of privacy is the general rule of thumb here, being that if the person has a reasonable expectation that where they are should be considered private, they cannot be filmed, photographed, etc. Overall, the primary concern is one of maximizing the proliferation of creativity, while minimizing intrusion that would inhibit that creativity.

Citations

1.     Ridolfo, Jim, and Martine Courant Rife. “Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright: A Case Study on Strategies of Rhetorical Delivery.” Copy(write): Intellectual Property in the Writing Classroom. Ed. Martine Courant Rife, Shaun Slattery, and Danielle Nicole De Voss. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor, P, 2011. Web. http://wac.colostate.edu/books/copywrite/.

2.      Good Copy Bad Copy: A Documentary about the Curent State of Copyright and Culture. Dir. Andreas Johnsen, Ralk Christensen, and Henrik Moltke. 2007. Web. http://wwwgoocopybadcopy.net/.