Ridolfo & Rife - Maggie's Story

In Jim Ridolfo and Martine Courant Rife’s “Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright: A Case Study of Strategies of Rhetorical Delivery,” they discuss the case of Maggie Ryan, a student at Michigan State University. To fully grasp the situation, one must be informed of the story in its entirety. In 2005 Ryan was on campus participating in a student protest for fair trade apparel. During the protest, a photographer came up and took a candid picture of her during a snowball fight. This photo was then uploaded onto the schools website. Explaining the story in this way doesn’t make it seem as if it should be considered a serious case, however it is because of the underlying questions. The image was uploaded on the schools website, but it did not at all imply that it was for the protest she was participating in. Although the protest itself was in fact not extremely serious, her intentions for it were. Therefore, having the picture on the site and having changed it for a completely different purpose make this matter a bit more serious. “Maggie Ryan’s case exemplifies the surprising distance that possible strategies for delivery can travel” (226).

            At the time the picture was being taken, Ryan was fully aware of the photographer’s presence, however she was not aware of his intentions with the photo afterwards. This is where it becomes a primary concern, as well as a bit construed as to who is right and who is wrong in this situation. The protest succeeded in getting the attention it wanted from the school and news outlets. The image of her playing around, however, was not applied to the website implying her activism. Ridolfo and Rife go further as to explain that, “Because Maggie was aware of the photographer’s presence and continued with her activities nonetheless, the argument that she had any reasonable expectation of privacy would be weak” (231). Because of this, Ryan admits that it might have “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).

            One thing I found the most interesting in trying to find a common ground for Ryan in this case was the attempt to apply the Orphan Working Acts of 2008. A House vote did not occur, therefore making it less likely to be reintroduced in the future. However, if one were to imagine if this were to be applied to Ryan’s case it would essentially help her in the end. “The proposed law, if ever adopted attempted to wrangle with some of the issues presented in Maggie’s case and provides another example of how problematic it is when a creation becomes disconnected from its origins, which is exactly what happened here” (232). This act essentially will make it easier for people to appropriate texts, images, and sounds that have no owner. “The concept of orphan works acknowledges that things people make can detach from their creators and take on meaning and power that was never anticipated” (232). The intentions that Ryan assumed would occur after that photo was taken were completely derived from here, therefore giving her no control over how or what the image would be used for. An Act like this would be essential to people like Ryan and others who have dealt with an incident such as this one. However, Ridolfo and Rife explain that because there were limitations of space in the chapter, they called to others to investigate this further.