Slashdot Mirror
EFF Says Burning Man Usurps Digital Rights
Hugh Pickens writes "In a few weeks, tens of thousands of creative people will make their yearly pilgrimage to Nevada's Black Rock desert for Burning Man, an annual art event and temporary community celebrating radical self expression, self-reliance, creativity and freedom, but EFF reports that the event's Terms and Conditions include 'a remarkable bit of legal sleight-of-hand.' As soon as 'any third party displays or disseminates' your photos or videos in a manner that the Burning Man Organization (BMO) doesn't like, those photos or videos become the property of the BMO. BMO's Terms and Conditions also limits your own rights to use your own photos and videos on any public websites obliging you to take down any photos to which BMO objects, for any reason; and forbidding you from allowing anyone else to reuse your photos. This 'we automatically own all your stuff' magic appears to be creative lawyering intended to allow the BMO to use the streamlined 'notice and takedown' process enshrined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to quickly remove photos from the Internet giving BMO the power of fast and easy online censorship. 'Burning Man strives to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit,' writes Corynne McSherry. 'Unfortunately, the fine print on the tickets doesn't live up to that aspiration.'"
IANAL, but....
In the Nevada desert? State owned property? Then I doubt they have a legal leg to stand on. However, if it's on private property, then they can probably stipulate what gets done with the photos. Stupid? Yes. Legal? Maybe.
Photographers, print this out and carry it with you at all times: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm. It was written by lawyers who do actually know a thing or two about photography and the law.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
"My assumption is that they ask/force people to take down images and videos that show extremely reckless illegal activity..." Agreed, for the most part. IANA lawyer, but I did just read the T&C's here: http://tickets2.burningman.com/info.php?i=2386 They make it pretty clear that pics/video you take (and even post) for PERSONAL use is all well and good. They don't seem interested at all. It's the NON-personal ($$$) stuff they're getting uptight about. In other words, "don't make money using our name without letting us know so we can wet our beak too." And the third party stuff reads like this: "If you put your stuff on YouTube, and someone grabs it and puts it in a documentary, we're going to sue those people." I dunno...maybe I'm oversimplifying here, but I don't have much of a problem with any of it...?
this is like the many stories of rent-a-cops telling photogs that they can't take a pic of this or that building.
or mall cops who tell you you can't shoot inside the mall.
the most they can do is tell you to stop and escort you out.
they CANNOT ask to see your photos (ie, you are not compelled to give them any views)
they CANNOT ask to have your memory card (only police can do that and even then, its iffy)
they CANNOT take ownership of 'all photos you take'.
they can ask you to leave (early) but they can't take possession of your photos.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Nope.
The area is leased to the organization. As a leaseholder, they can encumber you by the terms of the ticket. Your argument doesn't hold water in this controlled-access event. There's a perimeter fence that would thwart even really cool telephoto lenses. There are even NOTAMs for flyers that would like to buzz by.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Burning Man implements a Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ):
One of the essential supports for a TAZ is to ensure participants that their temporary experience - which can greatly differ from normal life - be temporary, rather than permanent. People do all sorts of crazy stuff at Burning Man. That self-expression is easier because they know that photographs and videos of their experience will be handled in a particular manner - for example, not taken and turned into a motion picture.
If you don't agree with BMO's photo and video terms, then you don't understand the concept of a TAZ.
The correct name would be BurningLumpy.
Problem was the event attendees took it literally. I was chased around for 12 hours by naked painted people with gasoline and torches...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's not FEDERAL LAND. It's leased from the BLM.
It's not walking around the desert naked-- it's private leased property.
The land underneath is BLM. The area is leased and is private.
Ridiculous is fine when you're with people that have consented to whatever. But you're incorrect in comparing BM to RenFests. They can do whatever they want, just like it were a nudist camp--- because the lease provides nexus of control to the BM organization. Even the Pershing County sheriffs will walk by, gawk, then walk on-- unless someone's obviously in trouble or violating the law by doing illegal drugs, etc.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Well, you're three quarters right, Economic liberalism is a plank in the 'modern conservative' platform, which is funny considering with how much disgust they use the word 'liberal' . However, conservationists, like Teddy Roosevelt (a progressive Republican), not conservatives, are still interested in the National Park system. Conservative typically mean people who don't want to see rapid change, or a change back to 'how things were'. Back around the civil war conservatives wanted to keep slavery where it already existed, and now it seems they are looking to balance the budget in a homage to Hoover. Also typically, conservatives were isolationists, and in favor of trade duties. However political identity has always had some fluidity, I'd describe myself as a progressive, but it's generally easy for others to label me a liberal. Participially as conservatives seem to think that anyone who has any values 'to the left' of their position is both utterly wrong, not worth consideration, and liberal.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
There are plenty of privately-owned, privately-occupied cabins on Forest Service land. By your argument, anyone can break into them any time, because they are "public". The same would apply to a privately-owned vehicle on a public street.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
A few years ago an old-time participant set fire to "the man" a couple of days early. The organizers decried it as criminal vandalism and reported it to law enforcement.
The hypocrisy was thick.
The real problem was that he did so while people were in/under it. I believe he was charged with arson of a populated area or something along those lines.
If anyone could set fire to whatever they wanted whenever they wanted..... well, that would suck.
Uh, no. Saying the argument holds no water doesn't make it so.
It's private property for purposes of the event. You must buy or be granted a ticket and comply with the terms. Go on, pay some money and ask a real lawyer. I lease my office. It's the same as if I own it. You get to come in if I say it's ok-- otherwise you're trespassing.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Except, of course, the fact that it is not a public event. You have to buy a ticket to go, which makes a private event on land that is leased from the government.
Furthermore, one of the conditions of use by the BLM is that the entire event establishes a perimeter fence and controls access.
i know this is slashdot where talking out of your ass gets you modded as insightful but this is just too stupid to pass by.
you've clearly never been to the event and have no appreciation of its history. i grew up in reno i went for the first time in 1996. at that time there were only 8,000 people (at least according to wikipedia) last year there were 49,500. there's absolutely no way you can scale that without changing the rules. i remember talking to people that we upset that there was no more drive by shooting range. there was a rave camp a mile from central camp and everyone drove their cars around. and that year three people in a tent got run over by a car, so the next year only art cars were allowed and a speed limit imposed.
they don't make rules just to make rules. the rules are either: a) responses to clear problems to keeping the ever increasing number of people from killing each other b) imposed by the counties (washoe and pershing) or blm in order to obtain the permits.
As someone who is going there for the third time this year, I strongly recommend that you try to change your attitude.
Don't get me wrong, if you ignore this advice, it won't bother me one bit. I don't need you to have fun in order to have a good time myself.
Let's be clear - there are plenty of things that are wrong with Burning Man, including your example of the double-standard of what is for sale. The physical environment is terrible. The heat during the day is intolerable, and it can get freezing cold at night. Furthermore, your skin will dry and crack and bleed if you're not careful, and by the time you get back, you are likely be coughing hard at the dust. Then, there are the people. A lot of people go there to get drunk and look at tits. There are those who come out Saturday night and steel shit. My girlfriend's backpack was stolen last year.
If you go to "satisfy your morbid curiosity," I guarantee you that will find a bunch of stupid jerks and washed out hippies hanging out in the desert.
Contrary to what anybody may tell you, Burning Man is still the real world, so it is up to you to try to have a good time. Don't like dance parties? Grab some homebrew and B-movies at the Bad Idea Theater. Want something more interactive? Try shooting a flamethrower or just go for a late night bicycle ride and enjoy the art.
The point is that there are a LOT of different things going on, and despite a lot flaws in the event, there are still a lot of really, really cool things going on (eg, 70' towers of fire). Try to put up with the crap and enjoy the good things.