Molotov Man Response

On the Rights of Molotov Man

This article is written about copyright laws. This article is also about context. Joy Garnett chose random photographs off the internet that captured “images of figures in extreme emotional or physical states.” She began her quest to replicate “riots” by creating a six-foot tall painting of a man throwing a flaming Molotov bottle. She later found out that her painting was a derivative of Susan Meiselas’ photograph of a Nicaraguan rebel. Due to copyright infringement, Joy was requested to pay fees and give credit to Susan any time she were to display or replicate the painting.

Due to the letter Joy had received, she requested help from bloggers on a website discussing copyright issues. The Molotov man was then taken by on-line users and altered slightly in many different ways creating a mockery of the copyright law; mirror images were made, sections were made, and even t-shirts were made. This occurrence was soon known as the “Joywar.” At the end of Joy’s section she gives a quote from a blogger, nmazca “Who owns the rights to this man’s struggle?” When you think about what happened according to Joy, the quote fits perfectly. Who owns the rights to the Molotov man’s struggle? Who owns any emotion? Is every emotion copyrightable?

Susan mostly describes the man in the photograph and the history surrounding what he was doing. She also describes how monumental this photograph became as a symbol to the people of Nicaragua. The Molotov man was used for a large amount of political propaganda, t-shirts and for religious affiliations. Susan also tells us who the actual Molotov man was, Pablo Arauz. She said that she was not using the copyright laws to own the emotion, but to preserve the context of the photo within history. She wanted to reserve the history surrounding it. Molotov man was not an “emblem of an abstract riot,” he was a symbol to an entire people and history.