I think this was quite an interesting story, although filled with some flaws. For instance, it really touched on the story of Molotov Man, and the issues that stem from republication of a source. For instance, I believe that it was wrong for Garnett to purposely forget where she got inspiration from and paint a giant representation of the original piece without at least giving some credit. However, one could also point to the original photographer and say that they did not give credit to the man whose picture they took. In the end, it seemed like a battle between the artists in terms of who had right over the work. Especially when republication of the painting began taking off in forms of edits, or being attached to articles online, the overall feeling seems to be just a little bit chaotic! However, what I agree with most is that the man who was pictured should have a say, as it was himself who was photographed in the first place. It’s also disheartening to see the context of what he intended to fight for be stripped away by people who attach his face next to the slogan or in an article that preaches something different.