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.'"

Is it even valid?

[91degrees]

BY PURCHASING TICKETS ONLINE, VIA PHONE OR MAIL ORDER FROM BURNING MAN, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS TERMS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE GIVEN UP SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, AND I DO SO KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT ANY INDUCEMENT OR DURESS.

How do you know you've agreed to the waiver if you haven't read the waiver? Surely if you buy tickets over the phone, (unless they explicitly ask you whether you agree to the waiver) neither party can reasonably expect that you've read the waiver.

And that's assuming this clause is even valid, which I think seems unlikely.

Re:Protest

[cvd6262]

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.

Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian

[Bongo]

Like most liberal 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 BMO rule totally contrary to the events original spirit.

More specifically, I'd say it is about "freedom", and when people are free to be themselves, you end up with the group devolving or evolving to whatever the average person in the group is really like at heart. So if you say to a bunch of nuns, "be free!", they'll probably spend the day in prayer. But if you say it to a bunch of people who believe "the system is bad", then often you get social drop-outs who couldn't organise anything more complicated than just... well they become a gang of thugs who wanna just live impulsively. And if there's some proportion of people like that who go to BM, then that's what it will devolve to.

Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian

[mcgrew]

the phenomenon your referring to isn't a feature of a liberal system, it occurs despite of your political lean

Be careful, I was modded "troll" for saying the same thing [slashdot.org].

!story

[vegiVamp]

Not really new, is this ? I remember JWZ blogging about this years ago. See http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/burningman.html

Think about this for a sec

[Lesrahpem]

A place in my area does something like Burning Man on a much smaller scale every year, and they too use a policy like this. I happen to know the organizers of the event in my area and I asked them about this sort of policy. It's not what it seems. The reason for the seemingly underhanded legalize has to do with people using drugs at the event.

Basically, if someone takes pictures which could "let the word out" this enables the organizers to take down those pictures and control the information, so the cops aren't up everyone's ass every year. This has worked for the last five years, and as a result it's fine and encouraged to smoke pot and drop acid all weekend long, even in front of event security (they do it too). I don't know if this is the same reason Burning Man does this, but it would make a LOT of sense.

Re:Protest

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true; I heard plenty of people who thought it should be a valid form of expression. And it was during the middle of a lunar eclipse, which was absolutely amazing to see. Many people were upset that he did it, because it disrespected the work that so many people did setting it up, but others felt that it was a valid expression of frustration with the "formal" format of the event.

Definitely he was vilified by the organizers, but the older participants I talked to held a longer view... and said that it had happened a number of times in the past. Of course, it was my first time, so who knows.

Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian

[Frosty Piss]

Burning Man started out as an absolute do-whatever-you-want-just-don't-kill-anyone free-for-all. Like most liberal 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 BMO rule totally contrary to the events original spirit.

I'm struck by how much this statement also applies to the nearby /. story about the current state of Wikipedia.

There is a reason

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason for this rule was due to Girls Gone Wild coming to Burning Man and later selling footage of naked girls from whom they did not receive permission to do so. It is a rule intended to protect the privacy concerns of the participants, and the idea that Burning Man is a commerce-free zone. If you do a search for Burning Man images you will see that there is no shortage of photos of the event. As an anonymous coward (actually just to lazy to set up an account right now) I will not attempt to say that the way in which BMO responded to the situation, or the language which they use to make sure that doesn't happen again, is right, but in the comments I have read thus far I did not see the cause of this rule's existence stated and I believe it sheds light on why they reserve the right to do what they do. I haven't heard of them actively going after anyone other than GGW.

Having been there...

[Anonymous Coward]

I assure you those of us who participate have very little problem with this. "It's a decision the the community made collectively, and one that is integral to maintaining the unique character of the event". Is a pretty good estimation of the attitude of the participants. We really hate it when Maxim magazine trys to recruit a crapload of frat boys to come take pictures of naked women just to post on their web site or print in their magazine. It's a private event and pretty expensive to attend, there is no reason they can't control the images that wind up laying around the web. In the village I stayed in there is a no photography without express consent of the photographed sign and if it is not obeyed you could wind up being chased by a large group of angry people. We stopped at physical assault but just barely. We usually just soaked them good with water hoping their camera was ruined. There was also a sign noting that water was a large factor in the area and you would get wet on occasion. The biggest pervs started showing up with underwater cameras.

Re:Heh, heh, heh...

[argent]

A century ago the conservatives were conservationists, protecting the wilderness from those progressives who wanted to cut down the trees and rip up the hills for their mines and smokey factories.

Re:the BMO

[Supergibbs]

There is a good reason for this. As it says in the article "Burning Man strives to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit," this is true, very true AT Burning Man. There are few rules and lots of fun. The press rule is there to protect the participants. Many take this opportunity to express themselves but don't really want to show the world their Burning Man side. At Burning Man, you are not supposed to take picture without permission but inevitably this happens. This press rule allows participants a way to protect themselves. It's not abused by the Burning Man Organization.

While Burning Man is NOT a nonprofit [burningman.com], they don't accept investors, have any commercial sponsorships, or endorse any products. They don't allow outside vendors and only sell coffee/tea and ice at the event. They definitely aren't out to make a lot of cash and have no need to advertise. Word of mouth grows Burning Man fast enough, almost 50,000 participants at the last burn. They'd much rather make their participants feel safe.

Re:then the tourists aren't a problem to you eithe

[geminidomino]

don't like that? then don't get nude.

Do you not see the inhibition to freedom implicit in that statement?

Nope. Freedom doesn't mean "I get to do whatever the hell I want and bugger the consequences." It means "I get to make the choice to do it or not."