“On the Rights of the Molotov Man,” an article by Joy Garnett and Susan Meiselas is a very interesting article in that it takes a look at how contextualizing and decontextualizing images can have an effect on their meaning and their representation of the subject included in the photo or image itself. However, I found the copyright infringement aspect of the article to be kind of ridiculous. While I understand that it had been Susan Meiselas original image, taken for a specific reason and with a specific purpose in mind, it was clear to me, from reading Joy Garnett’s portion of the article, that she had not created her painting with any intention of infringing upon Susan’s copyright. Getting the lawyer involved seemed to be going a little far. While I understand that it is important for an artist to protect their work and their creations, I also think the whole idea of copyright has been taken to the point of extremes in the art world, and in other areas of art more so than in the actual graphic arts, and it has gotten to the point where the phrase copyright infringement does not even carry as much weight as it used to.
However, the one part of the article that I found to be incredibly interesting was how artists online around the world stood up and fought for Joy Garnett’s right to use the image in her painting, since she had clearly not intended to infringe on anyone’s copyright by using it. She had simply found it in an internet search and felt inspired. Seeing that kind of backing from an online community is not all that surprising from me, since I, myself, take part in some online discussion communities for the arts and various things, but it was interesting to see how the story got twisted as it was translated from language to language. I think that is one thing that is universally understood… that language barriers can sometimes make things worse without intending to. For instance, the Chinese thought that Pepsi was suing Joy Garnett by the time the news got to them, and eventually, the whole thing was blown way out of proportion.
Though the whole situation did become blown out of proportion, I think that the online support that Garnett received for her painting had a lot to do with Meiselas having her lawyers back off and not going after the licensing fees. There would have been so many backlashes, that at the time, it probably didn’t seem worth pursuing. Even though she did give up on the legal pursuit, I’m glad that this article gave her the opportunity to voice her opinion and give the real background of the “Molotov Man.” His story is fascinating, and it was crazy to see how many different groups had used his image. Pablo Arauz, better known as the “Molotov Man,” had his image spread on flyers for various political parties, had his image put on match books, had his image painted on walls, and all the while, he was raising a family and taking care of the lumber company that he owned. It was not until 1990 that Susan Meiselas even knew the name of the man in the picture she had taken that had caused so much uproar… such a riot, in fact.
I think the most important question raised by this article was brought up by one of the online posters in response to the controversy and battle over copyright and rights in general between Joy Garnett and Susan Meiselas. “Who owns the rights to this man’s struggle?” Neither Garnett or Meiselas knew this man personally, other than Meiselas having witnessed him throwing the Molotov cocktail long enough to snap the photo that would bring her into the spotlight, but nowhere in the article did it mention asking Pablo Arauz’s permission to reproduce images of his likeness. It just seemed like such a trivial matter to me. It wasn’t a battle over art for art’s sake. It was a battle over rights, and ultimately over money for Susan Meiselas, and that kind of goes against everything that the image itself represented, as Arauz fought for political beliefs and freedom from a regime he didn’t believe in. Overall, I just felt like the article raised a lot of interesting questions about art and copyright as it relates to both 2-D and 3-D art.
No comments:
Post a Comment