In the age of digital re/production, our ability to inexpensively and easily recreate and alter works of art created by others is a complicated matter. In capialist societies, this issue goes far beyond attribution and credit to financial responsibilities to the original artist. It is hard for me to argue for free and fair use for all when most artists so rarely are compensated for their work and striving for economic stability and success is something most can identify with in capitalist societies.
However, I strongly believe in free access to media, art, media justice, and the opportunity for artists to create new works from existing works as a form of critique, commentary, and/or innovation. A blogger commented on the the Meisalas vs Garnett debate over Molotov Man with the poignant question “Who owns the rights to this man’s struggle?”
Have these appropriations of Meisalas’s work devalued the initial work? Or have the various interpretations, reproductions, and new works added depth to a larger discussion and furthermore strengthened Meisalas’s photograph by creating such a public interest in the situation?
All of these readings noted the complicated situations around using aspects of writing, music, or visual art. I still think their is tremendous value in open source creativity, in using copylefting, creative commons, and making visual art and media as accessible as possible. Reinterpretations allow for dialogue, discussion, and analysis. I don’t want to see those doors closed.