Burning Man

Reply to Burning Man (Ten People on Fire)

nobody@flickr.com (Pacdog) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:10:05 -0800

Pacdog posted a reply:

Burning Man (Ten People on Fire)

nobody@flickr.com (Gman583) — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:32:42 -0700

Gman583 posted a new topic:

Does anyone have photos of this stunt?

Reply to Burnim Man -- rights grab of your photos

nobody@flickr.com (SuperEvilBrian) — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:33:22 -0800

SuperEvilBrian posted a reply:

Burning man doesn't grab the rights to photos or assume complete copy right.

As Lynx said, the rights thing is for legal protection of the Burning Man image and for those in the photos. The photographer retains copy right but with limitations that are in line with the concept behind Burning Man.

It's a fairly common practice for organizations to retain partial copy right or to place limitations on what can be done with the images. Starbucks has a corporate policy of no pictures in the stores. The NBA has a policy of no photos of the player other than their licensed official photographers. Look at the fine print of any photo contest (now THOSE are rights grabs!), organized event, sporting thing, museum or many other things. They most likely retain some rights to use photos shot there or of their participants in their promotion. They also tell spectators if they're in photos they have no rights to compensation because by participating or buying a ticket or entering the event, they waive all rights to privacy within legal boundaries.

These policies generally aren't as clearly stated or enforced as Burning Man. They're not a big evil corporation, they're not making money off of people's pictures. They explicity say you can use your photos shot there in any personal way you want. They implicitly say that personal use is Facebook and Flickr or playing slideshows (oh, I love slides!) on the side of your neighbor's house.

And they add to ask before taking a photo and to be a little conservative where people are naked or maybe doing something their employer, spouse, child or voting constituents may not like.

Burning Man is a private event on public land. They have the right to whatever rules they want within the bounds of legality. I have every intention of posting BM photos to Flickr and my website (the photos there and Tumblr are hosted here). But, like the rest of my Flickr stream or website, I'm not posting naked or comprimising photos.

Maybe I have a distorted point of view, but I can't imagine someone putting a huge effort into a costume or art display/sculpture and not having anyone see it.

I think of it this way, I'm not taking a photo of someone in a state of dress or doing something I wouldn't want posted of myself.

Reply to Burnim Man -- rights grab of your photos

nobody@flickr.com (Stargazer95050) — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:25:12 -0800

Stargazer95050 posted a reply:

Many photos you see (here & elsewhere) are consentual. In the past, issues arose when photos & video-crews use their BM material for projects like "Girls gone wild" -- often without knowledge or consent

The main argument by BMorg is this is a tool which enables them in case of a dispute to act quickly. As long as there's no one complaining and commercial use isn't rampant, it appears no one bothers.

Reply to Burnim Man -- rights grab of your photos

nobody@flickr.com (lowteck53) — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:38:29 -0800

lowteck53 posted a reply:

How can photographer post their photos on Flickr if they (apparently) do not even have the rights to them?

I think this policy was adopted to protect burners from having their image posted on-line when they did not want to be. I have seen commercial sights of naked people from the burning man and apparently this policy has not prevented them from giving (or selling) the pictures to these sights.

Wouldn’t it be nice if manners were all that would be required to keep a picture of yourself off the internet and not some questionable legal document that apparently does not even work?

I have a stash of photos from burning man on my hard drive and I have only posted ONE of me and ONE of the playa online. I would not even THINK of posting pictures of others regardless of their state of dress just out of common courtesy.

The non commercial concept of BM is honorable but it has gotten so big it is nearly impossible for them to enforce these “rules” without an army of lawyers and a mountain of cash to sue with every “violation”
JB
2X burner

2011 Toronto Burners?

nobody@flickr.com (Vampire Black Cat) — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 14:35:15 -0700

Vampire Black Cat posted a new topic:

Any photographers from Toronto planning to go in 2011?

Trying to put a group together.

Cheers,
Mike
mzahra1@yahoo.ca

Reply to Burnim Man -- rights grab of your photos

nobody@flickr.com (LynxPics) — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:11:46 -0700

LynxPics posted a reply:

The characterization as a 'grab' is rather misleading, in that BM's policy has been this way for years.

Also, in the absence of such rules photographers retain all rights to photos. So as someone photographed (to counter Jeff's point), you already had no rights to them even without the BM rules. While it's true the BM rules leave photographers not able to sell photographs as they otherwise can, that to me is in keeping with the noncommercial rules of the event.

I also know of cases where Burning Man pictures got posted on porn sites (without consent of those in the photos), and these legal rules by BMOrg gave leverage such sites respected to pull the pictures. No individual impacted would likely have even known about the misuse of their images, let alone had the time and resources to ensure it was ended.

Is there room for improvement? Probably (e.g. as in Jeff's comments above, preventing BMOrg from passing the rights on to another company). The (now-past) public comment opportunity discussed that and many other items. But, please appreciate the pros as well as the cons of the current rules.

Reply to Burnim Man -- rights grab of your photos

nobody@flickr.com (Jeffrey Sullivan) — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:57:46 -0700

Jeffrey Sullivan posted a reply:

Excerpts from the article:

---
”We understand the real challenges BMO faces in trying to preserve its noncommercial, community character,” Corynne McSherry, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote in a blog post on Friday. ”That said, a benevolent censor is still a censor, and if other event organizers follow suit, assignment and abrogation of rights could become standard Terms of (Ab)use in all ticket contracts.”

The organization has agreed to accept public comment on the policy, and is currently inviting feedback in advance of its next meeting on April 28.

Messages should be sent to: cameratales@burningman.com
---

Everyone please respond to the request for feedback. Should Burning Man OWN all rights to photos of you? If you attend (under current terms), they would not have to get your permission to use your photos (or photos of you) for any reason whatsoever. If the organization is purchased or ceases operations, there's no telling who might take over those rights (and you'll still have no say in how photos are used).

If this policy is successful, do you want this model to spread to all other events or venues? Soon you may effectively have no right to perform photography in public (a pending law in the UK says exactly that), and you may lose all rights to own or share your own photos.

If you don't provide feedback, don't complain as the loss of rights to your own photos spreads.

Burnim Man -- rights grab of your photos

nobody@flickr.com (Stargazer95050) — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:49:41 -0700

Stargazer95050 posted a new topic:

As it is now, the Burning Man Organization requires ticket purchasers to assign to the group the legal rights of photos and video taken at the festival

[ www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/burningman/ ]

If you disagree better contact cameratales [at] burningman.com

Reply to Best BM 09 photos

nobody@flickr.com (juliancash) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:42:52 -0700

juliancash posted a reply:

Just the best of BM09: creative.ly/item/10766/2XDGf

Hugs,
-julian snail