Burning Man burns free speech
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Eighth Wonder (left) by Amy Shapiro, New York, NY, “is an archeological site where participants brush away playa dust to reveal the fossil remains of modern day items such as an ipod or an Oscar award. These icons are examples of the theory of survival of the fittest applied to cultural creation instead of biological development.”
And …
FlameThrower Shooting Gallery by Matisse Enzer, San Francisco, CA, is, “Modeled after “County Fair” style shooting galleries the Flamethrower Shooting Gallery provides a flaming twist on a long-standing American tradition and pokes gentle fun at the American fascination with firearms and personal power … ”
They’re just two of the exhibits at this year’s “Libertine Hippy,” as Fudzilla puts it, Burning Man festival where “Current ticket prices … are $300 and above”..
Pricey but coooool, man.
Or maybe not.
Because as Corynne McSherry posts in the EFF’s Deep Links, “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. Most have the entirely reasonable expectation that they will own and control what is likely the largest number of creative works generated on the Playa: the photos they take to document their creations and experiences.”
But, she goes on »»»
That`s because they haven`t read the Burning Man Terms and Conditions.
Those 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. 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.
The BMO also limits your own rights to use your own photos and videos on any public websites, (1) obliging you to take down any photos to which BMO objects, for any reason; and (2) forbidding you from allowing anyone else to reuse your photos (i.e., no licensing your work no matter what is depicted, including Creative Commons licensing, and no option to donate your work to the public domain).
Moreover, the Burning Man Terms and Conditions also strip attendees of their trademark fair use rights. The ticket terms forbid any use of Burning Man trademarks on any website, which means that ticket-holders can`t label their photos Burning Man 2009 or even use the words Burning Man on their Facebook walls or Twitter updates.
We do empathize with BMO`s desire to preserve the festival`s noncommercial character and to protect the privacy interests of ticket-holders. But by granting itself ownership of your creative works and forbidding fair uses of its trademarks, BMO is using the fine print to give itself the power of fast and easy online censorship.
BMO’s not the first to misuse the DMCA this way. Some doctors recently have begun to use the DMCA process to take down negative comments patients post about them to websites like RateMDs.com. How can they do this? Under the same theory BMO is using, each doctor demands that patients assign to the doctor copyright in anything the patient writes online about the doctor. It`s bad enough that some companies routinely trot out contracts prohibiting you from criticizing them, but it`s another thing altogether when they demand that you hand over your copyrights to any criticisms, so that they can use the DMCA to censor your own expression off the Internet.
The BMO`s motives may be, “more laudable than those of the paranoid doctors,” says Corynne, “But the collateral damage to our free speech is unacceptable. Using take-it-or-leave-it fine print to assert veto rights over online expression is no way to promote a ’society that connects each individual to his or her creative powers.’ Burning Man strives to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit.
“Unfortunately, the fine print on the tickets doesn`t live up to that aspiration.”
Deep Links – Snatching Rights On the Playa, August 12, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
August 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
If the people attending the event were aware of this, nobody would go this year.
BMO would surely get the message next year.
sharing is caring.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Burning Man is for hippie-posers. I don’t have much use for real hippies, myself, but the fake ones are far worse.
August 14th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
what a bunch of hypocrites! they promote creativity and individuality and then pull some crap thats directly opposite of their philosophy and mission statement. this atop the 300$ to attend.
i didnt think hippies had 300$ let alone access to the internet.
this seems like another case where the original intentions of the festival have become corrupted through corporate sponsorship,greed,paranoia,and those who want more power and control over what you think and say.
im very dissappointed in hearing this news today. the burning man has just immolated itself…i will not be attending any time soon.(ive been there twice before and it was never this expensive to attend.)
August 14th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
What happens if people just post their content with the caption “B.M.” ‘09? Seems appropriate for taking that kind of crap. ;p
August 15th, 2009 at 5:31 am
This is a false alarm. In principal is sounds bad, but the reasoning behind it is not so bad.
One reason is so porn studios can’t just buy tickets, take pictures of all the orgies and nudity and then sell it online. Another is to control images of drug use which although the authorities are completely aware of it, if there was more and more focus on it from the mainstream media (showing pictures on the news) then the police may be pressured into shutting it down.
This is a typical situation for these kind of events, and is only ever used against corporate entities. Which is why you can look on Flickr or Google and see masses of nudity and drug stuff.
August 16th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
“This is a false alarm. In principal is sounds bad, but the reasoning behind it is not so bad.”
Oh yea?
Ther is no reason for anyone to redeem their copyright to anyone or anything.
Actually they should be a law that prohibit that explicitly.
The copyright shall stay the property of the authors/creators and not the property of some corporate parasites,
PERIOD!
If corporations want to do business with artists they must ask for a licence and pay the artist for it.
I am sick and tired of all these corporate parasites crawling around!