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.'"

Comments

the BMO

[FudRucker]

just shot themselves in the foot, what better advertising is there than participants showing what a great time they had at the event...

Re:the BMO

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously they are only going to apply the rule to pictures of things that are bad press for them (drug use, sex orgies, etc.).

Re:the BMO

[TheP4st]

Bad press maybe. Bad marketing, I'm not so sure.

Re:the BMO

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah - BM does not need your puny advertising.

Media control makes sure that Black Rock City does not turn into a venue for the "girls gone wild" film crews. It's also part of the framework that allows BM Org to function on behalf of people when private footage ends up being used in such a manner.

Re:the BMO

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Not quite. They can choose which pictures to leave up or take down. They're free to claim whichever photos they like, and encourage the dissemination of the ones they do. This is not what copyright is for.

There's no significant financial benefit in owning these pictures, so I can only agree with the summary: this is for censorship and nothing else.

Re:the BMO

[postbigbang]

And if you do digg searches on BM photos, you'll see they hardly ever exercise discretion.

There are many BM participants that plainly don't want the world to see them nude, or having what's a potentially lascivious time. That's their right and a good protection to have fun without the PTA burning you at the stake. Here, the EFF has crossed the line. Imagine all the people in the Human Carcass Wash being exposed for the world to see. That's not what BM is about: outing behavior that's otherwise 'just fine' at the event.

People have more freedom at BM than the 'default world' and should have the right to protection, and the event should be able to control it. Privacy trumps someone's right to masturbate or express other moral outrage to pictures of strange things at BM.

Re:the BMO

[Suzuran]

"But if the public can attend, then it's a public event, right?"

PS: How can I delete it when the authorities haven't planted it yet?

Re:the BMO

[IronSilk]

Agreed--having a restrictive and enforceable media policy protects the self-expression inherent in Burning Man--even if it's not enforced all that often, if I find an online picture of me that captures a moment I would prefer live only in my memory, I can ask BM to ask for it to be taken down. I like that protection. Also, the media restriction is in the spirit of Burning Man--encouraging people to participate, to live in the moment, rather than recording the moment for some later moment. At Burning Man, it's better to dance than to take pictures! And if someone is serious about recording Burning Man, they can make special arrangements with the organizers--AND they have to follow some basic rules of politeness, which many of the default world media-lites seem to have abandoned.

Re:the BMO

[number11]

Bman is founded on principles of enjoying oneself and being free without concern that people will take photos and 'out' folks for recreational activities.

Let's assume (I don't know) that BM has an exclusive lease to the area. Because if they don't, other people may legitimately be there, and take whatever pictures they want, and do whatever is legally possible to do with them. In a public place, your privacy rights are rather limited.

Then the simplest (and least abusable) solution would be to ban cameras entirely. That would be fair, and not susceptible to abuse. Problem solved.

Likely to protect the Event Itself

[A. B3ttik]

My assumption is that they ask/force people to take down images and videos that show extremely reckless illegal activity so as to keep the Powers-That-Be from having evidence to get the event shut down.

Re:Likely to protect the Event Itself

[A. B3ttik]

I'm not really passing moral judgment on their censorship. I understand that people have to protect their own asses, especially in today's day and age. But you cannot deny that it does have some negative effects. It keeps people from expressing themselves in the form of pictures and movies on their websites that they would otherwise be free to share. Again, whether this is justified or not... I'm not really making any call beyond an implicit passive condoning by refusing to care.

Re:Likely to protect the Event Itself

[TheGratefulNet]

it should not (and does not) matter what their 'reasons' are.

they are trying to own and control YOUR photos.

this has to be stopped. bad precident to let corps take your rights away like this.

I would not go to this in the past; but now, I FOR SURE won't even consider giving them my money.

Bah, It's been that way for aa few years now.

[Lumpy]

I stopped going to burning man years ago when it became a commercialized corporate mess.

Burning man today is not what it was 10 years ago.
today it's a brand to be protected, an event to sponsor.

Bleh.

In the spirit of individuality

[east coast]

Just start your own Burning Man.

Burning Man isn't a sacred rite. It's a bunch of people who get together and decide to be goofs for a week. Nothing is stopping you from doing the same. I might even join you.

Re:In the spirit of individuality

[stupid_is]

You'll probably have to call it something different - BM is likely trademarked.

Maybe Smouldering Man (TM)??? A bit more evocative, too :)

copyright, patents, intellectual property

[circletimessquare]

is less about rewarding creators and more about corporate control of OUR culture

at this point, i am leaning towards "fuck you" to creators, as long as our legal system has an inability to differentiate between corporate distribution channels and actual creators

creators: i'm sorry your grandchildren can't live off your one hit wonder. i'm sorry you won't be a billionaire for "inventing" shamwow. but you can still get a great job as a respected engineer and you can still get great money from touring. sorry, thems the breaks: get to work like the rest of us dumb shlubs

the original idea that guided the creation of the notion of intellectual property: rewarding creators, has been completely corrupted as a way to reward distributors. the legal goon squads make sure actual creators get less $, and consumers fork over more $. in a preinternet world, distributors were necessary, but this is a scenario the internet has destroyed. now distributors are just unnecessary parasites. its called disruptive technology for a reason. it has disrupted the technological grounds upon which the rewarding of distributors works. all that remains is pushing the stake into the vampire's heart

intellectual property has betrayed its philosophical underpinnings, and we, the people, who are supposed to be the ones in charge, now have a duty to do our best to ignore, and/ or detroy intellectual property, since the legal system, which is supposed to serve us, serves corporate masters beholden to nothing but more cash for less reason

intellectual property law is still effective across the land because of legal goon squads, but philosophically, it is defunct, and you should ignore it... at the peril of the legal goon squads, but not at the peril of your conscience. it is at the peril of your conscience that you continue to believe in intellectual property

Re:copyright, patents, intellectual property

[Jesus_666]

Actually, there is a better alternative to copyright. It's called copyright. The problem with current IP laws is that once something is protected, it's protected forever (yes, theoretically there are limits but as lone as the Walt Disney Corporation can afford to buy reps they are going to be expanded indefinitely). We get a weird situation where, for example, much of Disney's money comes from derivative works (the brothers Grimm are a common source of material), yet others can very rarely use them as a source of material.

I agree that Pirates of the Caribbean should enjoy protection. However, what about Steamboat Willie?

Not everyone who opposes copyright as currently practiced opposes it in its entirety. Some merely think that the "limited monopoly" should mean that you get a fair chance at making money off your work, not that it should be locked down in perpetuity.

In fact, I believe that excessively long copyright stifles creativity - the incentive to create is outweighed by the restrictions on what you can create without getting ruined by a copyright lawsuit. (This is compounded by copyright lawsuits having become Serious Business in the last years. I'd be very careful about releasing material for profit - if someone decides my work is too similar to his and wins the lawsuit I might very well lose a six-digit amount of money, which I simply can't afford.)

To make an analogy to the "dwarves on the shoulders of giants" analogy: If copyright keeps getting extended we essentially get a world of giants you can't stand on unless you can pay big bucks for licenses. That would mean that any kind of disseminated creativity would only be possible for rich individuals and big corporations. I'm absolutely positive that copyright should not have that effect.

Actually, this might be part of why piracy is not only getting more widespread but also more accepted lately: There's a distinct us-vs.-them mentality going on with the average people on one side and the big companies on the other. Not paying for products turns from criminal frugality into a political statement. (Note that I don't mean for this to explain why people do it; I try to explain why people feel good about doing it.)


So, in essence, I'd advocate shorter copyright for two reasons: It's better at increasing creativity and it might help get people to respect copyright again.

Re:copyright, patents, intellectual property

[just_another_sean]

So how does the internet affect CDs coming in my mailbox?

It may not if whomever is sending them to you sees it as a viable business model to
do so. If, however, after watching their sales drop year over year as people turn to
digital distribution the vendor you purchase from decides to call it quits you will
either have to find another distributor or join the majority of people who have switched
to digital distribution.

The internet will not automatically make delivery of physical media obsolete and gone
forever; customers and business viability should decide that. Unfortunately for us our
law makers seem to think it should be up to them to decide when delivery of physical media
to consumers is no longer sustainable. And it seems that if they get their way that time
will be never. They will prop up a dead business model using legal tricks instead of
properly embracing the future. (As our buggy and whip making ancestors did last century).

Not enforceable in/from a public place

[evilandi]

Whilst there are probably a dozen practical and legal reasons why this probably isn't enforceable, the one that immediately springs to my mind is that Burning Man is taking place in a Black Rock Desert, which is government-owned and criss-crossed with historic trails open to the public. There are likely to be large areas of Burning Man which are visible from these public areas, and thus, according to Kantor's Legal Rights of Photographers (PDF), open to photographer to take photographs from as they see fit, without restrictions.

Re:Not enforceable in/from a public place

[Pecisk]

Nope for you too.

It doesn't change the fact that it is a public place (bars, pubs, restoraunts are has controlled access too, but they are public places in same time). As if you have got your camera into the concert where cameras are forbidden, get home and publish photos of naked soloist, thought luck for management and PR, but you OWN pictures you made.

And as some slashdotters already mentioned, this right can't change ownership automagically just because someone doesn't like it. However, you COULD have problems when publishing photos of the some special artist without agreement. But not transfering of rights.

Good Luck Enforcing That

[EllisDees]

Sorry, BMO. Any pictures that I take are mine. You can get stuffed if you don't like them.

Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian

[Ardaen]

I could point out that the phenomenon your referring to isn't a feature of a liberal system, it occurs despite of your political lean, but...

It always amazes me how people throw things into one of two buckets "liberal" and "conservative". One of the buckets is good and one is bad, depending on the person. How about instead of using inconsistent terms like that we get right to the point, call the categories "us" and "them". Remember you don't have to think about it too much, ignorance is a plus when putting "them" down.

Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian

[Gorm the DBA]

As opposed to Conservative fantasies, which don't even bother starting out as absolute do-whatever-you-want-just-don't-kill-anyone free-for-all and just go straight to the authoritarian group usurping natural ownership and dictating rules galore stage....
You would have been better off just saying "Power corrupts"

Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian

[Mr. Slippery]

Like most liberal fantasies, it rapidly devolved into an authoritarian group usurping natural ownership and dictating rules galore.

What the heck is "natural ownership?" Copyright is a government creation, not a natural right.

Anyway, BM "devolved into an authoritarian group" only once it sold out and lost touch with its "liberal fantasy". Once I saw Verizon running ads about "keeping touch on the playa" in a burner rag, it was pretty clear that the co-option was complete.

Some of the local burns retain the original spirit -- I've been to Playa Del Fuego several times.

Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian

[east coast]

That's because when Burning Man started it was just goofs in a desert that no one cared about. Today it's a recognizable brand.

They really _can't_ do this

[russotto]

Step 1: Buy tickets by phone

Step 2: Take pictures they don't like
Step 2a: Publish them

Step 3: When they complain, bring up 17 USC 204a: "transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. "

(once again, no profit)

Are There Sharks in the Desert to Jump?

[RobotRunAmok]

...because my impression was that Burning Man had become a parody of itself (and, by extension, the whole Mondo 2000 era) years ago. Like, Turn-of-the-Century years ago. These aren't "creative people" making an annual pilgrimage, these are Marketing Execs and guys who view the pre-bubble dot-com era the way today's high school pop music fans view 80's synth-pop bands and narrow ties.

"Burning Man" ?!? Christ, why does that even get any ink here?

Heh, heh, heh...

[argent]

Go back about a century and "conservatives" were setting up the national park system and "liberals" were all for industrialization and free enterprise.

Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian

[AP31R0N]

Capitalism started out as an absolute do-whatever-you-want-just-don't-share-with-anyone free-for-all.
Like most conservative fantasies, it rapidly devolved into an authoritarian group usurping natural ownership and dictating rules galore.
"We automatically own all your stuff" isn't the only feudalistic rule totally contrary to the system's original spirit.

That was fun!

Good Reason For It

[Bob9113]

There is a good reason for it. Burning Man permits all sorts of non-standard behavior, including nudity. For people to feel comfortable in such an environment, photography has to be limited. For the most part this is not a problem -- real Burners ask before taking a person's picture. But there is a bad element that goes to Burning Man; the tourists. They generally arrive on Thursday or Friday, camera in hand, and start snapping pictures.

Those pictures do two bad things: They inhibit people from acting freely, and they present the wrong image of Burning Man. It is not about nudity, but the daffy ducks with their cameras would make it look like it is; as they walk right past some of the most inspiring art in the world to snap a picture of a person who chose not to wear clothes that day. Keeping those pictures -- which misrepresent the event and are widely reviled by Burners -- off the Internet is a good thing.

I am a hard-core supporter of the EFF, but this time they are wrong to judge. Burning Man is a community with certain standards. Making sure Black Rock City remains free -- in both the legal and the psychological sense -- is one of them. Much like the GPL or anti-trust laws, sometimes freedom is best served by restricting behavior that inhibits freedom.

Hold up..

[sweetking]

I think the text is a bit litigious, but my bet is that it is there to help protect the events participants more that BMO itself. Burning Man has had problems in the past with amateur pornographers going to the event to film people naked and then selling the tapes/photos online for profit. This is absolutely against the spirit of the festival, which is still a not for profit event. The money earned off ticket sales just goes right back into funding next years event and to the salaries of a staff of year-round employees. I've seen and posted thousands of pic online and from past events and have never heard of anyone getting a cease and desist letter. As long as you are not trying to sell naked pics, I think you'll be fine.

Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian

[Archangel Michael]

The difference between Liberals and Conservatives ....

Liberals pretend there are no rules, but make lots of rules to cover shit they don't like.

Conservatives makes lots of rules, and pretend to not have any rules.

See, they are different!

Re:Don't like it? Don't go to Burning Man

[synthesizerpatel]

Very well put. Wish I had mod points for you because this is the most important point.

The biggest irony here is that the EFF talks about protecting privacy.. and BMO's policy here is to protect the privacy of participants.. not to stifle creativity.

Out of all the things the EFF could be focusing on, this is the least important 'threat' to anyone's digital rights that I can imagine.

Can I get my donation for this year back?

Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian

[Anonymous Coward]

The REAL reason (for the ban) is so you can act a fool and not get 'known' for it. If your not cool enough to understand why the organizers wish to preserve that kind of protection for people who attend from others who may just be paparazzi basically then maybe its you who never really understood what the 'spirit' of burning man was intended to be. Because offering protection to weirdos = weird things allowed to happen = interesting visit. Unless you just wanna go to the county fair, you can take all the pics you want but you can't get naked. Do the math.

Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian

[blackraven14250]

...and they both end up in the same place: fucking people over.

But if you actually were _going_ to the playa...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you would pretty thankful that BMorg's totalitarian, authoritarian, rights-usurping power grab on federal land is in place. Most folks that are up there are happy to have a safe space to get their freak on, and safe means not having to worry about some local TV station looking for titilating footage pointing their lens in your direction. Does that take away some of their rights? Sure it does. But it's a decision the the community made collectively, and one that is integral to maintaining the unique character of the event.

TFA seems to imply that one can't take photos on the playa without BMorg tracking you down and hitting you with a DMCA take-down notice, which is patently false. Everyone takes photos at Burning Man, everyone goes on to post most of them all over the web. BMorg's policy is targeted toward commercial content.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm no BMorg fan-boy. They're a bureaucratic and self-important bunch, but on this one they're right.

Burning Man jumped the shark when...

[istartedi]

[ ] Inherently over the shark right from the start--every counterculture is doomed to devolve into authoritarianism.
[ ] left Bay Area
[X] charging admission
[ ] mentioned on Malcolm in the Middle
[ ] guy burned the man prematurely and got in legal trouble for it

Re:Protest

[Anonymous Coward]

The hypocrisy was thin and generally non-existing.
The only nearly universal rule out there is "don't mess with anybody else's good time". That asshat decided to muck around with everyone's enjoyment of the burn and deserved what he got. If it was his private piece of artwork he'd be within his rights, but he decided to destroy a public piece that was there for all to enjoy.

Re:Burning Man: Ren Faire for Anarchist Wannabes

[avandesande]

BLM land is public property, even if it is leased. Your argument holds no water.

Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian

[cyber-dragon.net]

I have never seen a liberal deny the need for rules, they deny the need for rules which only protect people from themselves or enforce a moral stance not everyone has.

A conservative on the other hand wishes to use rules to enforce his moral stance on everyone regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees with that stance.

Don't confuse Democrats for liberals or Republicans for conservatives either... neither one fits either bill.

Maybe It's Not As It Seems...

[Orphaze]

I was under the impression that some of these stringent rules were put in place to protect participants, rather than limit their rights. IE, the organizers want people to be able to walk around naked without ending up on "Girls Gone Wild: Burningman Edition!" and use drugs without the possibility that their "crimes" may end up on the evening news.

Re:So, censorship is alright to protect YOUR socie

[Anonymous Coward]

They are using "censorship" to preserve privacy from paid thugs that would otherwise look to ruin people's time, and potentially ruin their lives by dragging them through a totally unfair and unjust legal system.

Who are people hurting by taking some drugs? Maybe themselves, at worst. Who are you (or who are the police/legal system) to say what people can and cannot do to themselves? They can fuck off back to the 17th century with their puritanical attitudes.

But who's is the other society you are trying to compare this to? The law enforcement society? Censorship of their behaviours and habits is definitely wrong - the law should be accountable to the people. Otherwise I cannot imagine what other society you are trying to talk about - isn't that a straw man argument?