The Moltov Man Prevails

Imitation is the biggest form of flattery. This is a common saying that I have been told ever since I was very young and Daniel Rombach stole my great idea for a story in second grade, told the whole class about it, and was praised by everyone including our teacher. However, this was theft and not imitation. Daniel did not see something I wrote and try to re-create it in a new form. He took the original and tried to pass it off as his own without giving the rightful owner (me) any credit.

Both arguments in the article "On the Rights of Moltov Man" are compelling and have their own right, but ownership of anything is treading such a fine line. Owning something, having something belong to you, and you alone, is a very ambiguous concept, and one that is constantly being challenged and uprooted. Especially when it comes to a life. Susan Meiselas felt she owned the rights to this picture and she wanted to keep the history behind it in context instead of having it spin out of control into a symbol of something it doesn't represent. However, Joy Garnett's intent was not to de-contextualize the photograph in any way. Joy's goal was to paint
"images or figures in extreme emotional or physical states" -- something that "moltov man" certainly garnered.

In the end, it was the fight over the rights of the picture, who "owned" it, and who had the rights to put it into certain contexts that seemed to make it into something bigger. Susan cites many uses of "moltov man" and he became a symbol for this Nicaraguan struggle long before Joy painted him. The symbol has been used so many times, few know the true context of the original photograph which upset the original photographer, yet is something that cannot be helped.

It's like the infamous image of Ernesto "Che" Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary. His image is used today extremely out of context, and is worn on t-shirts by people who have no idea of the relevance of Che's mark on history: on his stance, on his greed, or the number of people who were murdered by him and under his command. It is a symbol taken out of context and out of reality and made to represent something else. Angst and rebellion in a high school student is a bit more underdeveloped than the revolutionary tactics of a rebel leader.

Really, no one can control people's opinions and how they view certain ideas and symbols. We can take things out of context to make people look stupid, and feed on the stupidity of those who believe it (coughcoughmichaelmoorecough), but that doesn't make it true, it's just freedom of speech. Someone trying to get across their point of view, be it through manipulation of the truth or otherwise.

In the end, it's up to us to be informed consumers, media viewers, and human beings. If you don't already know that you certainly can not believe everything you hear or see, than you've got some major media literacy issues that need to be tackled.

When all it comes down to is the "validity of the context" of something, copyright exists, but the first amendment will prevail more times than not.