“No you’re not.”

There’s already an established system for dealing with commercial photography and brand dilution. It mostly works. A little bit – ok, a lot – of dust and some nudity doesn’t change that.

I will say this though, whether or not they may be a “benevolent orgaination”, show me some other orgainaztion who would take the “extreme power-grab” measures BMO is doing, and do what they can to NOT USE IT!!!

I entrust power to those who don’t want it, because those who don’t want it are less likely to exercise it, and therefore, less likely to abuse it. They are even open to people suggesting how this policy should be changed!!!!

On the otherhand, other comments above mine have stated that the people behind BMO are human, and are subject to human nature, and I can understand their concerns.

So here is a compromise that I suggest would benefit all involved:

First, my “loose” attempt at legal defintions (considering the fact that I ain’t a lawer, and since many in here are concerned with legalites)-

“The event, hosted by Black Rock City, LLC (Also referred as ‘BRC’ or ‘BRC, LLC’) from 12:00am PST August 31, 2009 to 11:59pm September 7th, 2009 shall be referred to as “Burning Man” or “BM” or “The Burning Man Event”.

“The people attending Burning Man, whom having purchased a ticket for The Burning Man Event, shall be refered to as ‘Attendees’

“All photographs and/or videos taken at Burning Man, shall be referred to as ‘Content’, ‘Images’, or ‘Videos’

“Attendees who create Content shall be referred to as ‘Producer(s)’.

“Attendees who have their Images or Videos taken by the Producer(s) shall be referred to as ‘Subject(s)’.

“When needing to refer to both the Producer(s) and/or Subject(s), shall also be referred to as ‘Party’ or ‘Parties’.

“Any contract or agreement made, whether it be written or video recorded; of sound mind and body; not under any influences of drugs, alcohol, or threats; not under any legal guardianship; or not under legal age to make such contract or agreement, shall be referred to as ‘Formal Agreement’.

“Commercial-Use shall be described as usage to obtain profit, monies, or any other form of compensation.

“Non-Commercial-Use shall be described as usage to not obtain profit, monies, or any other form of compensation.”
—–
Now my attempt at placing copyright properly -
—–
“BRC, LLC holds the copyright of all Content made at Burning Man and is BRC, LLC property unless the following condition is met, in which case, the Content shall be the property of the respective Producer(s) and Subject(s):

‘Both Parties have made a Formal Agreement; before, during, or after The Burning Man Event; to how such Content can be displayed, distributed, showcased, or otherwised handled for Non-Commercial-Use. If such Content contains copyrighted logos or registered trademarks of BRC, one or both parties should also make a Formal Agreement with BRC, unless such logos or trademarks are removed from the Content before being distributed, showcased, displayed, or otherwised handled for Non-Commercial-Use.’

“Commercial-Use of such Content is against the spirit of The Burning Man event, however, should both Parties make a Formal Agreement on Commecial-Use, both Parties must contact BRC, LLC to make a Formal Agreement for such use.

“If there is no Formal Agreement from both Parties, BRC shall be given Power Of Attorney to either Party (or both Parties if both Parties are in agreement) of the Content if either Party or BRC discovers undesired or Commercial-Use of such Content from the other Party or other individual(s) or orgainization(s).”
—–

I don’t see why BRC or any attendee would be opposed to the “sort-of” legalase I just described (and believe me, I spent a better part of two hours typing this up to try to make all parties happy!!!)

Should BRC, LLC like what I just typed and wants to use any part or all of it, feel free to send me a check ;). It can go towards my “Burning Man 2010 or Bust” fund ;D

Whether or not the BMORG are abusing this power or corrupt (which is debatable) doesn’t diminish the contributions of the thousands of people that go each year or the environment they create.

And while I haven’t been around long enough to comment on the good old days that some old-timers like to complain about, the idea that this ruins the event are just silly. I’ve still met tons of great people and had lots of fun at the event in the last few years that I’ve gone, so $300 or no, it’s still worth it for me. I happen to like having reasonable porta-potties, and I’ve seen worse management at smaller events, so it’s impressive what they’ve been able to accomplish, in my opinion.

There are certain compromises that need to be made when an event grows to this size. I’m ok with that. We can start talking about the ruin of the event when Budweiser sets up booths and charges $8 for a beer. Some of you are just using this as an opportunity to bitch about the downfall of the event (whether you’ve been or not, it seems) and aren’t really adding anything useful to the discussion.

It doesn’t sound to me like BMORG are closed to the idea of modifying the terms, but we need to have a more productive conversation than the one that’s been going on so far.

So, maybe focus on a specific solution. Some are suggesting the terms shouldn’t exist at all, since photographers and the photographed already have some rights, but couldn’t there be some compromise that would allow BMORG to act on their behalf in the more extreme cases, like the “Boobies of Burning Man” case?

What’s next?! Copyright litigations on LSD blots design?!

Money, money, money…

“Commercial-Use of such Content is against the spirit of The Burning Man event, however, should both Parties make a Formal Agreement on Commecial-Use of such Content, both Parties must contact BRC, LLC to make a Formal Agreement for such use.

Conversely, should BRC, LLC wish to use Content for Non-Commercial-use or Comercial-Use, BRC should make an attempt to contact the Parties of such Content to make a Formal Agreement for such use. If such contact is not made, BRC may still use Content but must give written credit to the Parties for such Content, if the Parties are known.

Should either Party discover content being used by BRC, that Party should contact BRC, LLC to provide the Party or Parties name so that proper credit may be given.”

And credit is really what it’s all about, innit? :)

Yeah, I feel that way about Guantanamo, too.

As for the image to this article. What? No Muladhara? Oh yeah, Bikhram Yoga Inc has trademarked chakras.

“If the movie theater owner said that you can’t take pictures inside the theater, would you be screaming that it’s your right to take pictures of whatever you want?”

You are allowed to take photos at BM.

“Photography is observing and recording: spectating. It’s generally discouraged”

Then why are there so many photos of it, and why is ActionGrl talking saying “the photographers that attend are a wonderful lot of well-intentioned and respectful creative contributors”?

Somehow things you are saying here are not ringing true with the things an official spokesperson of the event (ActionGrl) is saying. Funny, huh?

IANAL, and I’m certainly not an Australian one, but in the US if the photographer/agency/company doesn’t have a signed model release, your friend is entitled to compensation. And if it’s plastered all over Melbourne, then he could probably get a pretty nice settlement.

Maybe the lawyer he talked to meant it wasn’t worth his effort.

It has zero to do with BMO, so why you assume they even need to be involved? You are suggesting that they are somehow the agreed arbiter of usage, but that’s half of the argument here.

Spot on.

from the license
“Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder”

and a link to the liscenses:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/

so yea it wont work for the BMO.

The idea that BM would take away my private photos is completely paranoid, and I am glad that there isn’t a cottage industry of people selling images from the event.

People on this thread who disagree are invariably using default world logic, talking about their right to commerce and so forth, which just doesn’t make sense to me.

Thanks, Andie.

It would depend on how easily identifiable he was in the photo, whether or not it effected his reputation. He should at the very least make a complaint to the company. It may make them think twice about using an ad agency that uses photos without getting release forms signed.

You have no idea what you’re talking about:

http://www.comic-con.org/cci/cci_press.shtml

“Any videotaping, filming, or recording of any manner which will be used for commercial purposes (non-news) must first obtain written permission from Comic-Con International. The filming of panels in their entirety, and the filming of panel screens is strictly prohibited.”

Yes, there are a lot of people that go there to take pictures of people in costume, and in that sense, it’s not unlike BM, but that doesn’t mean that some of them aren’t restricted.

One of the reasons it IS so special is because of the hyper-consensuality among participants — and this policy is just a written-down form of that.

It’s lovely if you want to take photographs, but that isn’t a right you have any more than it’s my right to have sex with you because I want to.

Burning Man is a private event. That means consensuality extends to the event as a whole, as well as with individuals. All the event is asking is that you take and use photographs in ways we are comfortable with.

This seems to me rather simple. It would be different if this was a public event — then I would be jumping up and down with anger and supporting EFF (as I usually do, because they rock).

But this is our event. Play with us consensually or go home.

You would need a property release, and a release from the EVENT itself in order to use a photo in a car commercial.

That’s why there are no commercials showing candid footage taken just on the street of people.

Not only does this argument not hold water…
it makes the BMORG look like they just don’t know what they’re talking about.

The main issue is still barely being scratched. Once commercially whored out, (and I’m so sorry but if you think this event would not be whored out you are very wrong) everyone and they’re beer guzzling, party animal friends would be racing to Burning Man for a huge keg fest. Ideas such as giving, picking up after one another, being in the moment (which photography takes from anyway), not using money and that unexplainable spirit, etc. would be thrown out the window.

Then you’re going to have stores eventually opening up at Burning Man, beer gardens, gift shops, cover charge to the dome, etc. There has to be a good solid line drawn in order for something as sacred as Burning Man to stay sacred and pure.

I understand that under normal American standards Burning Man rules may not be PC but if it takes doing things differently in order to create a Burning Man than I wish people would do things differently more often. People from all around the planet fly in for this event (for some strange reason) yet EFF acts like they are doing something wrong here.

I promise you the BM spirit would dwindle every year if people saw their 14 year old neighbor wearing “Playa Dust ‘09” T-Shirt with a picture of an art car on it. It would grow in numbers but die in spirit. Keep it special.

Perhaps the great secret is to simply ignore the rules and let BM INC try and sue. If they do, they look like A**h*les. People can throw a party anywhere.

Some people even gave me their cards asking for me to email them the pics. I agree with Sioen that Burning Man is a safe haven that allows people to have a lot of freedom and act in ways perhaps they would nowhere else. It is the idea of that freedom that I think BM is trying to protect, but as a photographer I feel I should have the freedom as well, as long as I have permission from the subject.

That said, I am absolutely certain, given my many years of personal experience dealing with contracts dealing with temporary use of federal land, that BMO is actually committing a violation of federal law by withholding the right to withhold media rights to anything shot on this land.

Of course, if I signed this, I’d get in trouble at work, so I’ll remain anonymous this time.

So much for “community” then! If you can’t trust the people around you at burning man, how is this community any freer than walking down the street in your own town?

This rhetoric has twisted photography into being voyeuristic “mediated representation” and taking drugs and running around naked in the dirt is now artistic expression. How far from logic can people get in defense of acting silly?

There may be great artists and wonderful artwork at burning man, but not taking responsibility for your own solipsist lapses in judgement isn’t art. If the goal is just to run around drugged up and naked and not get arrested by the cops, it would make a lot more sense to do that in your own private back yard with friends you can trust. Heck, with flush toilets and a weber grill, it might be a lot more comfortable.

Though a good compromise would be to set up a designated photo area with suitable screening, in which it is back to being a matter of the photographers and models/artists/whatever hashing out their own agreements — just to avoid having to go completely offsite should they actually want to make such a deal.