what else would i like to know? this is silly. this would NEVER fly in this community. why would the BORG suddenly change their stance regarding commercializm all of a sudden?

i doubt this is true.

where is this petition you speak of as I have pen in hand

well, few points have been brought up, let me give you my opinion of them:

1. no, i don't think it's ok for the sf chornicle to do a series report on BM. in fact, after burning for 8 years, i expected them NOT to be there. hey - i was on the cover of the september 4 issue! hey, no one asked me/notified me my picture was even taken. i'd like to go out there and truly be me without being worried that people from the outside world might get a glimpse of who i am, simply because it could harm my position in the outside world. so, sfchronicle = discovery = commercialism, which i always thought was kept out of BM.
2. on to commercialism. someone on eplaya said "we are not a leave-no-trace event, we are a leave-nop-trace-there event". sadly, this is true. however, once you are ON the playa, all usage of commercial advertising is highly discouraged. why? because quite frankly, i always thought we don't want to see that kinda stuff out on the playa. i guess to me this simply extends to beyond the playa. i don't want to be on discovery, no matter how respected they are as journalist.
3. for me, the fact that the BORG is getting money from something like this means they literally sell out their community for money. now, we're not talking about helping "the little guy" making a documentry of his adventures out there, we're talking about taking a guy who's basically on reality tv, having his multi-million (billion) dollar company pay for him while he does his show IN burning man? the idea sounds so unlike the burning man i know, i still can't convice myself this isn't a hoax.

I'm not a lawyer but I found this:

Right of Publicity

The right of publicity grew out of the general principles of invasion of privacy that prohibited the appropriation of a person's name or likeness to gain some benefit. Within the past few decades, the right of publicity has emerged as an independent type of claim that can be made when a person 's name or likeness is used for commercial purposes. Although the right of publicity is commonly associated with celebrities, every person, regardless of how famous, has a right to prevent unauthorized use of their name or image to sell products. The right of publicity extends beyond the commercial use of a person's name or image and includes the use of any personal element that implies an individual's endorsement of a product, provided that the public can identify the individual based upon the use.

In many states, the right of publicity survives death and can be exercised by the person's estate.
From:
fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrig...apter12/ 12-a.html

Under section 102 of the Act, copyright protection extends to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." The Act defines "works of authorship" as any of the following: (1) literary works, (2) musical works, including any accompanying words, (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music, (4) pantomimes and choreographic works, (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works, and (7) sound recordings. An eighth category, architectural works, was added in 1990.
found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy...26_purpose

It's not an IP question if the use is documentary rather than entertainment. A documentary show falls clearly under the 1st amendment precedent that allows news organizations to film almost anything from a public place and then broadcast it (and make money doing so). If they were using it to endorse a product or sell a movie or a non-documentary show you might have a case.

As photojournalist I deal regularly with people who incorrectly believe they have a right not to be photographed. There is no such right - it's the use that the images are put to that determines if there is a case and the NY Times is unquestionably a new organization.

The BMorg, like the NFL, can control use of images at it's private event (at least images shot from inside) but the participants at the event don't have the right to say no to news coverage.

That's simply not true for news media - otherwise I as a photojournalist would need to acquire rights to everything a photograph. If I want to sell images for non-news use then I need releases but for news use I don't.

Gypsy,

Like they say when someone gets in a dangerous situation at Burning Man-- Read the ticket! By attending you appoint BMorg as your representative to protect your intellectual and privacy rights. So basically, BMorg is the only entity that needs to consent for use of art or likenesses from the event.

I disagree - the advice I get from lawyers and from the National Press Photographers Association is that anything you can see from a public space is fair game to photograph. If I sold image of an art installation as just posters or prints you'd have a case. However I think you'll find that an image sold to a newspaper or TV show for a news story about a news event falls into the fair use provisions. At least that's what my lawyers tell me (and I have photographed a number of concerts professionally).

Gypsy: WTF is the "Right to Privacy Law"?

Many of these issues were discussed in a pre-Playa thread:

bm.tribe.net/thread/7d1f...f615939ad9a1

If people are upset by the deal with Discovery Times, then by all means they should sign the petition and send it to the Bmorg. It would be interesting to know how much Burning Man is being paid, but the payment seems to take the form of a site usage fee, defraying the extra costs the organization incurred for cooperating wih Discovery Times rather than as a fee based on how much money the show generates.

HOWEVER:

With the possible exception of military secrets, there is no prior restraint on publication in the United States. You cannot stop news organizations from reporting what they wish. You can sue them after the fact if you've suffered some kind of quantifiable loss. Rather unfortunately, you've signed away your rights to do that (to the Burning Man organization), although it would be interesting to see if that clause would hold up in court.

A newspaper can use a photograph of you without your consent, without your knowledge and without compensating you if it has any newsworthiness. Attendance at something like Burning Man is far, far, far, far, over the line into the area of what is likely to be considered newsworthy by a court.

The Burning Man organization CLAIMS that Burning Man is a private event. Federal law is unclear if an event open to thousands of people can ever be private. In a pertinent case in Nevada (states can give the press more freedom than the Feds, but not less), a documentary production crew that snuck into a private event in Las Vegas and filmed a case of animal abuse was exonerated from wrongdoing (see link in the other thread). The court held that the public's right to know took precedence over the alleged trespass.

It is unclear if ANY event held on government property can be considered a private event. There are conflicting rulings in various jurisdictions and the Supreme Court has never dealt with this issue.

As Trapper says, a news organization does not need permission to capture intellectual property as long as it is being done for news purposes. A book review, for example, can contain quotations from the book in question.

The specific law is Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 1, Section 107, which reads:

"...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, *****news reporting,***** teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

DaBomb: Nice distinction, but Burning Man cannot write the laws. Silverman is absolutely right: the publisher of a website is as much the media as Discovery Times.

Silverman and Trapper are well-informed fellows. Some of the rest of you may have breathed in a bit too much Playa dust.

<<Hard to see why for some people Discovery Channel is a sign of end times for BM>>

Discovery was not the only media presence. Andie Grace herself told me at Media Mecca this year that she didn't understand what the big fuss was over DT when the ABC Network was doing an hour long piece on this for 20/20.

Hello? 20/20 is a news magazine. Hardly journalism. And the point is: there's freaking commercial spots! That is the whole point! We're asked to obfuscate the sides of our U-Hauls and Ryder trucks, but why, when we're going to be shown for public consumption on network commercial television
and cable TV?

Hello?!!!

> I think everybody who wants to know about BM; Yohoo
> or true believer already does.

Speaking from the Heartland (I live in Kansas), I can assure you that this statement is premature. You would not believe the number of people to whom I mention Burning Man that still respond with blank stares.

I'm not talking about hayseeds, hicks, and rednecks, either, but people who are well-educated and generally well-informed. Unless someone is from the Bay Area, LA, NYC, or Chicago, I still assume that Burning Man is as unknown to them as Khumb Mela.

I have not yet spoken to this topic here or in other forums, though I have talked some with a few folks like Da Bomb regarding it.

Much discussion there or as viewed by me here often seems to come down to and revolve around confusion regarding why this show in particular was allowed to shoot coverage, and therefore why it may be allowed to air when finished?

Personally, I find that trailer of "Only in America" as troubling (I haven't watched a show, don't have cable), in that BRC 2005 will therefore be presented, and ridden, if you will, in series between ads alongside other "sports"and "Americana" like rodeo, boxing, and football--a sort of "reality tv' behind some guy getting to experiment something else that not anyone can try (but perhaps the whole world should), as if the basis of the whole show was to tantalize "and yes inform," and REGARDLESS of whether it is healthy and constructive--something imho that does distinguish it from more neutral and free forms of media, as well as from BRC.

Moreover, aside from staging, considering that much will not be airable (nudity, sexual themes, free speech, performances, art) due to television standards, on the one hand, such a show will inevitably present a pretty miniscule at best boxed up version of BRC; on the other hand, makes you wonder what will be presented in order to meet ratings and the attention of anyone who is or could be a regular veiwer?

Aside from also reserving judgement upon the episode itself, until actually seeing it, it is also entirely possible and in some ways likely that Burning Man--that is to say it is also entirely possible that more or less we all rubbed and will contine to rub some good off on the show, its crew, the Discovery Channel and Discovery Times, short of being aired, or indeed if after all it is aired upon the world....?

Since someone from the Media Team (at least the first one I have noticed) has spoken here on this tribe to this specific topic, Flackmaster, I have a few questions of you (or anyone from the Media Team) to perhaps clear up some of the confusion that I have:

1) This show to my understanding seems to be something new for the Burning Man Project to tentatively contract to?

Are there any other television shows that have aired that packaged BRC in this sort of way?

2) Do you know why it has been agreed to let this kind of show go forward to possibly being aired upon approval?

3) What are the goods possible or tentative that would derive from this kind of "show reality" vehicle airing?

Lastly, back to some of my personal concern, much confusion seems to arise out of a fact or opinion of sorts, that America and the world really doesn't need this kind of show to showcase BRC.

The idear of some television personality (participant and viewer) gaming across America from rodeo to football to boxing to BRC in order to ???, moreover, seems to me to all too easily reflect somewhat of an aggrandizing, aggressive, and fleeting view of life.