Maggie Ryan and the Power of Rhetorical Velocity

In their article Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright, Jim Rodolfo and Martine Courant Rife introduce many terms that serve to illustrate the complexity of copyright and, in turn, the case of Michigan State University activist Maggie Ryan.

Let us begin by identifying the relevant terms. Ridolfo and Rife key the term rhetorical velocity to represent a “strategic concept of delivery in which a rhetor theorizes the possibilities for the recomposition of a text based on how s/he anticipates how the text might later be used”. This definition pulls in two more key terms: delivery and recomposition. Delivery, in the rhetorical sense, is very much what it is in everyday life. It refers to the way in which something is presented, including all of the most minute intricacies of design that that entails. Additionally, rhetorical delivery could be considered a “situated practitioner strategy” through which a rhetor delivers some sort of message (241). Many contemporary forms of delivery involve recomposition, which describes the ways in which a text can be repurposed and reused by an individual (the original rhetor or not) for the purpose of rhetorical delivery. This brings us back to the idea of rhetorical velocity. In order to successfully compose and deliver rhetoric, the rhetor must anticipate the rhetorical velocity of the message and construct the delivery around these considerations. This means they must be able to anticipate all of the ways in which the work might be recomposed for future use. In practice, this reusing of material is what Ridolfo and Rife call appropriation. This term refers to the action of taking and using something for one’s own purposes. In many cases, e thing is taken without permission from the owner. Thus, this term can have different connotations. 

This brings us to the case of Maggie Ryan. Here’s the run down: Maggie Ryan was a student at Michigan State University who actively advocated for the United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) and the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC). At a particularly creative protest against the university’s refusal to join the WRC (they wrote messages in the snow), Maggie and her co-activists received significant media attention, which is exactly what they hoped to achieve. An image was taken of Maggie in which she is shown playing with snow at the protest. From the image alone, however, you can’t tell that she is at a protest. A couple of years later, this image of Maggie appeared completely out of context on various advertisements for the university (the very institution that she had been battling). Now we are faced with an important and complex question: was this image of Maggie rightfully and legally recomposed and appropriated by the university?

At first, you may be inclined to argue that Maggie’s rights were violated. The image was appropriated in a way that completely removed the original context and replaced it with a very contradictory one. The image thus depicted Maggie in an incorrect (perhaps negative, from her standpoint) way. In one instance, the image was used on the front page of the university’s website, with Maggie’s body cropped in front of an entirely different building. It is clear that the image was being recomposed in a way that Molly did not permit or intend for it to be. This, however, does not prove a case against the university.

There are several factors that work against Maggie in this case. For one, Maggie and her fellow activists were putting on a unique protest in order to garner media attention. Through her method of delivery, she achieved exactly what she intended: pictures to be taken. What she did not intended was for them to be used in the way that they were years later. But, regardless, her intentions were fulfilled.

Additionally, the image was taken in a very public place, what Ridolfo and Rife refer to as the commons. They define the commons as a public space where the individual’s right to privacy is significantly reduced. For example, imagine someone posting an image of you taken walking on the sidewalk versus one from the window to your bedroom. One is considered an invasion of privacy and the other isn’t.  Because the image was taken of Maggie in a public space, it is considered fair game.

The school also argues that the image isn’t directly associated with Maggie. They are not presenting Maggie as having fun playing in the snow, they are presenting a female student of Michigan State University having fun playing in the snow. They have no intention of tarnishing her reputation or even identifying who she is. Whoever designed the website simply found the image in some creative commons of the university and thought it would fit the page well. It was unclear who had taken the image and who was in the image, and so it was fair game (according to Orphan Acts and the In Loco Parentis law).

It still seems bizarre to think that the university could appropriate and recompose this image without notifying or asking for permission from the individual depicted in the image, especially for advertising purposes. This is what makes the case and the issue of copyright so complex.

A crucial point regarding rhetorical delivery and velocity exists within Maggie’s case and within the copyright world in general. Every aspect of a rhetor’s delivery must be carefully planned, orchestrated, and assessed.  Once it is out there, you lose control of it. This case is a clear illustration of the power of rhetorical velocity. Of course, this is not something that we could expect Maggie to have anticipated when she first partook in the protest, and for that she is not to blame. This case just functions as a profound example for all rhetors and for all people. Maggie mentions in an interview that maybe she should have been holding a sign related to the protest. Then, her means of delivery would have been more precise and it would be impossible for the image to be reappropriated in a way contrary to her intentions. The rhetor must anticipate how her words and actions will be received today, tomorrow, and 50 years from now and craft the delivery in a way that will preserve the original intentions most effectively.

-Morgan