I found this article interesting, because it address some contradicting issues in the question of copy write. When Joy Garnett first takes Joy’s photograph of the Molotov Man and turns it into her work of art. After Joy claims copy write rights on the image, an artistic movement to turn the photo into different forms of art becomes famous. It is at this point that the question is brought up, “Does the author of a documentary photograph–a document whose mission is, in part, to provide the public with a record of events of social and historical value–have the right to control the content of this document for all time?” This question is tricky, because while the photographer clearly has some rights over the content, are these rights absolute? I would argue they are not, and that someone drawing inspiration form another piece and making it their own is not “copying” per say.
However, the other side of this question is not a legal one, but a question posed by some, “Who owns the rights to this man’s struggle?”. By asking this question, the focus is turned back toward the individual and the context in which the photo was taken. As Susan explains in her section of the article, the photo has huge cultural, revolutionary, and personal context for the man in the photo. Because this important context could easily be missed in the artistic renderings of the photo, I agree with Susan that above all, the context of Pablo Arauz is being taken away, and this, if nothing else, is problematic.