So far this may have been one of my favorite pieces we have read. It dives fully into the complexity of intended meaning, understood meaning, and the right to an idea versus an image. What struck me most while reading On the Rights of Molotov Man was that a long and sustained debate went on overseas about the right to his image. Initially it was suggested that the photographer was wronged in the remaking of the image, as the image was hers when she captured it on camera. But really the image was created by the man himself, who existed and acted in that particular time and place. The issue of context as argued by the photographer also added an interesting dimension to the debate. If an image is to have contextual meaning, then is it “right” to place it into another and ultimately change the meaning. At the same time, what if this decontextualization is not out of carelessness but rather to allude to the significance of the original image. When Molotov man was painted, he was taken out of the context of the photo, but when Molotov man appeared in countless other art pieces these were references to the painting and the copyright controversy. I understand the photographers desire for her image to remain in its context as that is the intent of journalism, however the recreation of the images in other forms does not erase her contribution. Her image now is just as available to be viewed in context as it would be if it had never been borrowed.