Ridolfo and Rife

     In their article, "Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright", Ridolfo and Rife introduce a couple terms that I have not heard before, and a couple that I did not associate with the digital age before reading their text: rhetorical velocity, delivery, appropriation, and recomposition. This is the first time that I had encountered the term "rhetorical velocity" which, according to the article, means, "a strategic concept of delivery in which the 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," (Ridolfo/Rife 229). This term is increasingly becoming more important in today's digital age, and I believe that Ridolfo and Rife emphasize this in their article. The Internet and all of the digital programs that are associated and available through computers allow for multiple ways of remixing and recomposition; which I took to mean the use of a text (or image) in a different context than originally captured.
The context in which Maggie was photographed was completely different than what the university recomposed it as. Was it harmful? No. The delivery of the image, it it's recomposed form, was intended to capture student life, not to single out Maggie. This is a part of rhetorical velocity that Maggie did not consider, though. Ridolfo and Rife seem to be constantly telling us the difficulty in being able to use rhetorical velocity during the digital age. When there are multiple ways of interpretation and even more ways of delivering information, how effective can rhetorical velocity be once the issue is over. Maggie used rhetorical velocity to push her movement of the universities involvement in the WRC. Because of the digital age, she wasn't able to foresee the amount of recomposition possible after this movement had come and gone.
     "To give specific context to our discussion, we need to define exactly what was appropriated by the university: a digital image of Maggie, more broadly speaking, an image of a human body," (Ridolfo/Rife 230). The discussion of the term appropriation is the one of which surprised me the most, especially because it came down to arguing the appropriation of a human body. As a human, who lives in her body every day, this body is mine. It is the only body I have ever known and will every know and I expect to have complete ownership over this body. The thought that a university can act as in loco parentis, and have 'ownership' over images of me, is not as surprising as it is, to me, disturbing (Ridolfo/Rife 233). It makes me curious of the so-called 'contract' I signed with Florida State when I chose to come to this school. Is there something in the handbook that says any photos taken of me on campus can be used without my permission by the university? If so, I'd be even more disturbed. Ridolfo and Rife bring up interesting claims and theories, especially concerning these four terms, ones that I hope to unpack more with my classmates next week in class. I want to know what others think of the use of Maggie's picture. Do you believe it's fair use? Or should the university, and other universities, be required to attain permission, especially when concerning the human body?