I thought that the essay raised a few interesting questions regarding fair use of content and the dangers/possibilities of a piece’s original message being warped. In terms of fair use, I think that both parties handled it fairly well. Joy didn’t mean to steal Susan’s content and she used it in a way that was original. Susan’s lawyer did send a licensing fee to Joy, however, they were never collected. This feeds into my second point: even though Susan never sued Joy, she still felt strongly about how the original message was radically changed. While I do think that art should be able to be interpreted in many different ways, I think it is also important to recognize the origin and backstory of said art, at least for the artists. While I do respect Joy’s interpretation of the image, I can also understand Susan’s perspective where her original image and message has been perverted from what she wanted her work to be about. Then again, it’s not like Susan owns the rebel. Perhaps it’s not up to any artist to represent him in any way.