News Flash: BM Founder John Law sues Burning Man

topic posted Tue, January 9, 2007 - 3:36 PM by  scalefree
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
johnlawspeaks.wordpress.com/2007...yone/
(see also laughingsquid.com/john-law-...-partners/ )

Does Burning Man Belong to Everyone?
09Jan07

Open source/public domain.

Burning Man belongs to everyone.

Burning Man is the sum of the efforts of the tens of thousands of people who have contributed to making Burning Man what it is.

The name Burning Man and all attendant trademarks, logos and trade dress do not belong to Larry Harvey alone or to Black Rock City LLC.

If they don’t belong to anyone, they belong to the public domain. If they are in the public domain, the event can still go on and the trademarks, logos and trade dress can still be used. But the event organizers don’t own those things and each and every one of the event participants are free to use these things as they want without permission or interference from the event organizers. There’s nothing to stop the party from being as big and wild as ever.

Some of you know this history, some don’t.

In 1986, Jerry James cobbled together an 8 foot tall human figure and burned it on Baker Beach with Larry Harvey. They got the idea after they had attended Baker Beach Solstice bonfires & art soirees hosted by Mary Grauberger in the early 80’s. Jerry James looked me and the Cacophony Society up in 1988 and asked for our help and by 1990 we were integrally involved in the Baker Beach party.

The Baker Beach parties were beach bonfire parties with little planned “participation” other than attendees picking up a rope to help raise the figure before torching. I recall on the Solstice of 1990 (the last and by far biggest event at Baker Beach) that the entire music presentation consisted of one rock/jazz drum kit ably commanded by Dean Gustafson (god bless him!) Cacophony dubbed the events Burning Man in 1989.

The Cacophony Society was conversant in organizing strange and intense events in dangerous and unusual locations. Once involved, Cacophony influence encouraged and inspired the event to attain much greater and more ambitious goals. The original event organizing at the Black Rock was easily 90% Cacophony members or alumni. My involvement was crucial to the survival.

Kevin Evans and I were planning a Cacophony Society event in the Black Rock Desert for late summer 1990. Earlier in June of that year we all helped out with the Baker Beach party. The police came and would not allow us to burn the figure. A small hand full of us helped Jerry James deconstruct (literally – OK?) the figure of the man and stored it at a lot Jerry had secured.

Unbeknownst to me and most everyone else, Jerry and Larry were in the middle of a very rancorous falling out at the time. Jerry, one of the most honorable and fair people I’ve known over the years withdrew from organizing the event. Michael Mikel had joined Cacophony recently and the two of us developed a fast friendship becoming defacto event organizing partners.

Cacophony events were not for profit at all and the early BM was anything but for profit. M2 (or “Danger Ranger as he became known) and I stepped into the breach after Jerry’s departure and became, along with Larry, the primary organizers of the rapidly expanding event.

By 1994 the three of us formalized our partnership into a business and became legal owners of BM when it became clear that we needed to do things like pay taxes since we had started selling tickets in an effort to finance the ever more ambitious event.
It’s difficult now looking back on those days to realize just how broke we were. All monies taken in by the event were spent immediately on expenses, supplies, transportation, etc.

Although then as now many people contributed much to the event often with no concern for money, M2 & I were putting so much time into the event that we were broke and starving. We needed some assurance that if the event ever got in the black that we would become paid organizers – it would “become our job.” Larry agreed. Two years later on the heels of the disastrous (for the organizers) 96 BM I resigned from active involvement in the event.

A more detailed account of the preceding story can be found in Brian Dougherty’s history of BM: “This is Burning Man” Little Brown Publishers.

In early 97 Larry, M2 and I formed “Paper Man LLC” in order to own the name Burning Man. From that year til 2005, Black Rock City L.L.C., (this entity comprised of M2, Larry and four others became the managing entity for the BM festival) paid Paper Man LLC the minimum amount required (around $800 a year) to pay PMLLC’s annual filing fee. M2 was the managing partner of PMLLC & handled the paper work.

Larry chose not to meet his obligations and convinced Black Rock LLC to default on it’s obligations to PMLLC in 2006. At that point M2 and Larry found themselves at loggerheads and secured legal council to duke it out. M2 filed an arbitration demand naming me and Larry a couple of months back.

Burning Man, since it’s inception has depended upon the gratis efforts of many. Since my leaving active organizing of the event in 1996, it has become a huge business generating more than 8 million dollars a year. Some people are paid quite well for their efforts. If the organizing core of the event believes, as they say quite clearly in their literature that the BM concept is a true movement, and has an opportunity to really make a difference in peoples lives and ideas around community, the arts, etc., then they shouldn’t have a problem releasing the protected trademarks Burning Man, Black Rock City, etc to the public domain where ANYONE can then BE Burning Man. Doing this will not impede their ability to manage and organize the event, sell tickets, pay themselves, and any artists, vendors and tradesmen as they choose using ticket sales receipts.

The only thing that would change is that NO ONE would be able to capitalize on “Burning Man” by licensing the name or selling it or using it as an advertising pitch. There is no other reason to retain these legal ownership titles other than to capitalize on their brand value at some later date.

I was defrauded by Larry and Michael’s actions. I hope they choose to do the right thing and give Burning Man to the people.

If they prove unwilling to do that, then I must insist that Larry and Michael honor their contract with me and honor the intent and letter of the law of our earlier agreements.
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Have there been any incidences of Burners actually being prosecuted for using the Burning Man logo? We put in on all KINDS of crap, with the only difference being we aren't trying to sell that crap; we're more likely to be giving it away.
    The judicious use of copyright law keeps me from being barraged with Burning Man hemorrhoid ointment and Black Rock City sanitary napkin advertisements. Swell.
    I'll save my bitching for when I can detect a problem. Until then I believe the issue is being handled just fine.
    • give, don't sell

      Tue, January 9, 2007 - 4:41 PM
      that's the key difference--if its a gift, you can put it on anything. but if someone tries to sell anything with that name/logo? well, to see what happens, try selling something on ebay with that in there. there's a whole bunch of people who volunteer to watch Ebay so nothing BM is sold there.
      • Re: give, don't sell

        Tue, January 9, 2007 - 4:58 PM
        Is this just about money or egos ??? Please, don't let it be anything like that !! If after all this precious time of having such an incredibly spiritual event these past years, it comes down to the "creators" having a big in-fight for money or ego, then their souls must have prematurely left their bodies for a better place and some misinformed shit took over instead. In which case, it will soon be time for a solemn funeral not all that different from James Brown's as far as SF is concerned.

        Forgive if I'm woefully ignorant on this, but I thought one of the chief reasons for legal "ownership" of Burning Man was to protect it from ravenous commodification of captilism. If that is lost, will McDonalds be selling a Burning Man Big Mac in Reno and beyond instead of the nice little "Indian" Tacos we have been getting ??
        • Re: give, don't sell

          Tue, January 9, 2007 - 5:04 PM
          Also, I thought the only people getting "rich" off Burning Man were the high-powered lawyers highered to protect the event. I don't give a shit if Larry gets a 6 week vacation and "can pay his rent" for chrissake. I haven't heard anything about him buying a 20 room mansion or filing million dollar tax returns lately. Am I wrong on this ??
          • Re: give, don't sell

            Tue, January 9, 2007 - 5:12 PM
            This litigation will be costly.
            • Re: give, don't sell

              Tue, January 9, 2007 - 5:16 PM
              ** The only thing that would change is that NO ONE would be able to capitalize on “Burning Man” by licensing the name or selling it or using it as an advertising pitch. There is no other reason to retain these legal ownership titles other than to capitalize on their brand value at some later date. **

              Is this REALLY true ? Is it REALLY that simple ?? Here come the da lawyerz ........
            • Re: give, don't sell

              Tue, January 9, 2007 - 6:52 PM
              was it Rodney King that said.. "can't we all just get along"

              Geesh! every fucking year since I have been going to the playa THIS exact subject appears... again and again and again.... in one form or forum... BAD FORM!!!!

              it's truly sad... I dont know John... I met the "other John" once... (is that like the other white meat, I digress so) and I have met Larry a few times.... and I adore M2... now without being in on this from the begining I dont have a clue what the REAL story is... and I am quite sure there's only a very select few that do know.... certainly Not 30,000+ even if they did read Brian's book (which I own and love)

              But, sure feels like NO ONE really thought THIS would go on like this and become what it has become.... and someone got cut out.... most likely by choices THEY made and now wish they had stayed to have a slice of the Burningman Pie.....

              frankly, I dont give a rats ass about whos suing who... and IF they had/have any Class at all they will keep it to the parties concerned and NOT drag everyone else thru the muck and mire with them...

              for Fucks sake.... GET OVER IT!!! it is what it is... and if ya feel the need to sue over it.. do it... just dont air the stench in the public forums.....

              it doesnt involve us... we are NOT part and party (or is that part and parcel) to THEIR sour grape fest....

              if ANY OF THEM are Half of what THEY claim they are.. then allow them the space to do what needs to be done without adding 30,000+ voices to the mix....

              Bare


              • Re: give, don't sell

                Tue, January 9, 2007 - 8:32 PM
                "and someone got cut out.... most likely by choices THEY made and now wish they had stayed to have a slice of the Burningman Pie..... "

                This isn't the case at all. It's not about money, it's about something different. If it was about money, something like this would have happened a long time ago.

                And I really don't think it's about Ego either. Again, if it was, this would have happened a long time ago. John has owned a third of the name of Burning Man for a long time, so why now is he getting involved? I mean, he could have raised a mighty stink a loooong time ago about the whole thing. So why now? If you read his blog post, it's because the other two founders, M2 and Larry, are suing each other as well from what I understand. So I think that John, being a pretty honest guy, just wants the story to be out there and for the name and trademarks to not be soley owned by Larry Harvey, who's seems like is making some sort of power grab to be the sole owner of Burning Man. Which, as you state, is silly: it belongs to the 30,000+ people that go. The very same point John makes on his blog, that it should belong to everyone.

                I know John Law, and am friends with him. I know that he put himself thousands of dollars into debt to get Burning Man to happen at all, and left in '96 for many reasons that are much more complex than you seem to state here.

                For the record, he's not airing the stench on public forums. He's made a single blog post explaining his actions, as well as posted the legal breif. That's hardly a stench.
              • Re: give, don't sell

                Wed, January 10, 2007 - 9:09 AM
                "it doesnt involve us... we are NOT part and party (or is that part and parcel) to THEIR sour grape fest.... "

                If Burning Man is the people then shouldn't the people take time to make sure it is run the appropriate way and with the ideas of the whole kept in tact?

                Or will you simply turn a blind eye as long as you can have fun?
        • Re: give, don't sell

          Tue, January 9, 2007 - 5:19 PM
          No, this is not about money or egos. It's about one person who took control over a group of people's efforts.
          • Re: give, don't sell

            Tue, January 9, 2007 - 5:30 PM
            Maude, you got to convince me with more than just one little birdie line chirping in what looks like to me a BIG fukkin FOREST with all the trees saying either "money" or "ego". Control issues are usually tied to egos.
            • Re: give, don't sell

              Tue, January 9, 2007 - 5:34 PM
              It's a very long story. There is a book called "This is Burning Man" that details the beginings and the changes that happened with it.
              • Re: give, don't sell

                Tue, January 9, 2007 - 5:36 PM
                • Re: give, don't sell

                  Tue, January 9, 2007 - 5:39 PM
                  Thanks, Maude !! Grateful for the link. As far as I'm concerned, the true owners of Black Rock City are all the beautiful creative souls that have been deeply affected by it or even born by it..........
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: give, don't sell

                    Tue, January 9, 2007 - 5:48 PM
                    Let go John.
                    Move on to some new form of creativity.
                    As Doherty states in his fascinating book,
                    Your vision for Burning Man is something other
                    than what it is now. 41,000 people are happy with
                    what it has morphed to be.
                    This is the perfect time to open to something new!
                    • Re: give, don't sell

                      Wed, January 10, 2007 - 8:50 PM
                      John is! He's a friend of mine, we were just over last week to his house for dinner.

                      He's very busy with his new son, his book, helping his wife's business, and running his own business as well as lot of adventures. It's not like he's some bitter person with too much time on his hands and an old grudge to settle.

                      He's doing this because he doesn't trust M2 or Larry to be the sole owners of the name and image of Burning Man. It's not about a grudge, it's that he got pulled into arbitration from the legal battle going on between M2 and Larry, and he decided that that best response was this lawsuit. Go read his blog: johnlawspeaks.wordpress.com/
      • Re: give, don't sell

        Tue, January 9, 2007 - 11:27 PM
        It's sort of the anti capitalism symbol without being remotely communist or anything similar. I don't know if there's ever been a gift economy before burning Man. Barter economies for sure, but this is different. Hard to sell something that any burner would immediately recognize as being explicitly not for sale.
        • Re: give, don't sell

          Wed, January 10, 2007 - 9:27 AM
          "I don't know if there's ever been a gift economy before burning Man."

          You aren't serious, are you? Do you honestly think Burning Man came along and invented the idea of a gift economy?

          Here are a few examples:

          Potlach celebrations held by Native American tribes where the feast, music, etc was all a gift to the community from the community.

          Philanthropy of ages past where those with more money would build libraries, schools, etc to be enjoyed by all of the society.

          The sharing of food that was gathered - ie farmers taking turns feeding each other after a work day.

          The general idea of having a BBQ and hanging out with all your friends (duh, any superbowl Sunday amongst friends is in essence the same sort of thing only instead of bringing playa bling someone brings chips or beer)

          Anyone that volunteers their time to something (ie food bank, mentoring) is giving a gift to the community in which they live.

          Oh yeah and I guess you could consider both organ and blood donation to be gifts as well..


          So there you have it, BM didn't event the idea of giving a gift to your community. That's right giving a gift, people... Gift being the noun and giving being the verb. "Gifting" is not a real verb.

          A
          • regarding eBay sales

            Wed, January 10, 2007 - 9:38 AM
            "costume designer who was selling their stuff on eBay with "great for Burning Man" in the description. "

            For the record, using "great for Burning Man" in the *description* of an eBay item is perfectly allowable and what we encourage sellers to do when we have to ask them not to call their item a "Burning Man" item in the *title*. In order to retain a mark, by law, you have to enforce it equally, even for a one-time eBay sale, or else you may find yourself unable protect it from worse abuses when it really counts. Using it in the description is always our alternative suggestion when we ask a seller to change the title -- which we always do by asking with a nice email from a volunteer, not a letter from a lawyer.

            And that is why you don't see "Burning Man Lighter Fluid" or "Burning Man Grease Paint" or "Burning Man Macaroni and Cheese" for sale on eBay.
            • DVD
              DVD
              offline 3

              Re: regarding eBay sales

              Wed, January 10, 2007 - 3:08 PM
              "which we always do by asking with a nice email from a volunteer, not a letter from a lawyer." which contains a threat about contact from a lawyer(s). "[Product]... great for Burning Man" appearing in an eBay title the beginning of a slippery slope towards Kraft Macaroni and Burning Man? Umm ok... I guess the lawyers aren't that good then. Perhaps a change is in order to properly protect Burning Man (tm). Again, seems a lot like the real world.

              And having been on the receiving end of "nice emails from volunteers" we might have a quibble over what "nice" means.
              • Re: regarding eBay sales

                Wed, January 10, 2007 - 3:31 PM
                "And having been on the receiving end of "nice emails from volunteers" we might have a quibble over what "nice" means."

                maybe, but having been on the recieving end of "nice emails from attendees" there is an equal quibble over what you consider a quibble. works both ways, so i would probably stick to the present issue without dragging in another.
                • DVD
                  DVD
                  offline 3

                  Re: regarding eBay sales

                  Wed, January 10, 2007 - 3:39 PM
                  Higher standard being the one putting on the event... the end receiving the monies... on the commodified end of the correspondence... yes, part of the current issue and salient.

                  Thanks for trying to be the cop- again. Being a volunteer myself for a couple years, you can come on down from that horse.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: regarding eBay sales

                    Wed, January 10, 2007 - 3:50 PM
                    nice try.

                    not trying to be a cop and its unfortunate if it comes off that way, had enough of that and why its a SUGGESTION. but its dead on target when someone includes something from an alternate agenda, which your response pretty much confirmed as well as disclosing this is not the first time.
                    • DVD
                      DVD
                      offline 3

                      Re: regarding eBay sales

                      Wed, January 10, 2007 - 4:21 PM
                      Maybe a change in verbiage would convey the "suggestion" aspect of the intent. It would change the general tone of your messages- which are condescending. Now, in the Internet tubes I understand that your tone might be interpreted as 'edgy' or 'cute' but if you were to read it from a different, maybe less Burnt or less Tubey, perspective you might see it comes off very cop-ish and rude.

                      I guess we approach the idea of representing the Org in different ways. When I get a mail from an irate Burner about this or that I do not take it as a challenge to be more rude or to ignore them. Instead I realize that these people are spending far more than just the ticket price and the hours getting themselves and gear there *and* paying for the privilege and treat them with the respect they deserve- the same I expect. I wish the Org were more universally like that.

                      I believe the way the Org represents itself and is represented is a part of John's intent. That it takes itself so seriously as to send a "nice" cease and desist to people who put "great for Burning Man" in eBay ads extends to that point. I am sorry you do not agree.

                      If you wish to yell at me further about how you are right and I am merely tangential agendist; SUGGESTION, please write to me privately.

                      See you on the playa.

                      • Re: regarding eBay sales

                        Wed, January 10, 2007 - 7:05 PM
                        done.

                        but since you chose to reply here yourself i will do the same. i agree in spirit with what you are saying, but in practice i dont always for the same reason. i believe that people should always be treated with due respect but unfortunately by the nature of the event, it sometimes attracts its share of nut-jobs that many people in the org have to deal with. despite this, the org is usually more civil than many other organizations i have had to deal with, usually. thats admirable considering the huge volume of controversy and criticism aimed towards it and that needs to be taken into account, especially when people attempt to hold accountable the actions of individuals and apply them to a group.

                        not to say negative things happen to people who dont deserve it, unfortunately they do. but if you want to try and push an overly accomodating attitude then try and start here with every troll, every person in a moment of heated exchange, every dpw worker.. etc. good luck because as condecending as things may sound, your responses include comments that are equally so. you are going to have to overcome a certain degree of hypocrisy to overcome that.

                        if this is what you think john intends, unless you have a more specific example without more speculation and rhetoric it seems less reading his mind and more reading what you want into it.
  • Just in case anybody's confused, I'm not John Law & I have nothing to do with the lawsuit, I just posted it when I read about it elsewhere. Carry on.
    • "Just in case anybody's confused, I'm not John Law & I have nothing to do with the lawsuit, I just posted it when I read about it elsewhere. Carry on"

      Looks like we have a modern day Paul Revere.... or would that be Benedict Arnold....

      WHY did you feel the need to do that? just really curious what YOUR motives are in this...

      Just because its "Burning Man" doesnt mean ya need to fuel the fire...... does it?

      bare
      • > Just because its "Burning Man" doesnt mean ya need to fuel the fire...... does it? <

        It's a very relevant story to the topic of this tribe. Why are you questioning his motives?
        • Ahh Mr Jones... I questioned because HE made a point to inform all of us that HE was not John Law only posting the info... so, I question his motives in doing so... to inform, to incite... to...???

          relevant to whom.... 30,000 + or relevant to John, Larry, M2.... ???

          and truly... I havent anything eles to say on the matter.... it's the same shit different year...

          Bare
          • On Tuesday, 1/9/07, in the middle of our regularly scheduled board meeting, we discovered the announcement on LaughingSquid.com regarding the blog and complaint from John Law. We are currently evaluating the text of the complaint. After we have had a chance to review it and talk to our attorneys we will have a more complete response; in the meantime, there is one comment that we can share now.

            Our heartfelt belief in the core principles of Burning Man has always compelled us to work earnestly to protect it from commodification. That resolve will never change. We are confident that our culture, our gathering in the desert, and our movement will endure.

            -- The Burning Man Project
            • DVD
              DVD
              offline 3
              Could someone explain how it is not a commodity?

              n. pl. com·mod·i·ties
              1. Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage

              A group of people earning salaries putting on an event seems to fit that definition -regardless of how wonderful the event can be --which it can.

              I loved the story on John's Blog of the Burner and costume designer who was selling their stuff on eBay with "great for Burning Man" in the description. He got a cease and desist warning from the Org. Why it sounds so much like real life....
          • Bare, I have no connection to any of the parties involved beyond being a fellow Burner (2002 & 2003, hopefully 2007). I posted because I knew people would want to know & I saw nobody had posted it yet. I never imagined someone would be offended at being informed, but if you were I apologize for telling you about all of this. As for my followup, I made it because someone had already PMed me asking for more info & I wanted to clear up any confusion.
  • Some conclusions are made in John Law's points as they are listed, but without contingent facts to answer these two questions, which form the basis of John Law's apparent suit of law:

    Can someone answer them, or, just maybe this stuff should remain among the listed parties?

    1) What steps did M2 actually take in order to defraud John Law?

    2) What steps did Larry Harvey actually take in order to defraud John Law?

    >>>I was defrauded by Larry and Michael’s actions.<<<

    There are lots and lots of other points made, with other questions involved left unaswered, but it is only the two above that seem...to maybe be needing more public explanation after John Law's public announcement as listed above. Regardless, I too will gladly remain neutral throughout whatever proceedings shall go forward.
    • The way I read it, Larry and M2 basically promised John that he would share in any growth of the event. In the meantime, Larry and M2 have been on the payroll and made a career out of it while John has received basically nothing. In other words, he seems to be claiming that he was promised equal benefit in the future but that benefit wasn't delivered while Larry and M2 did benefit from the growth of the event in real terms. I believe but am not positive that the fraud comes from allowing Burning Man to use the various names and logos for a license fee that was much less than their real value. Instead, a tiny license fee was charged while Larry and M2 were on the payroll. So two of the parties benefitted in real terms while one party did not and he is claiming that this is in breech of the basic understanding made between them when John left active participation after the 96 event.
  • Unsu...
     
    Thank fucking God. I was hoping for a 2005 level of drama to hit around Januruary so that by the time Burning Man hits everybody is all energized and angsty and make some incredible shit.

    I bet this is resolved with a competing event within the event, put on by John Law himself. They'll call it BRCLLC2 or something original like that, they'll charge to get in and everybody who pays entry will get a single share in the BRCLLC2 for each ticket they buy. You'll buy your ticket/share before leaving for burning man, and then you'll need to produce your ticket to enter the area set aside for the BRCLLC2.
  • Ok... so he feels defauded because an "investment/job" he left did well after he left it? and now he wants a piece of the pie/back on the payroll?

    Comparatively, the Service Mark isn't what makes Burning Man what it is... it has ONE service mark, not including any art or representation, as opposed to Mc Donalds which on a cursory search as at least 338! service marks, covering all from art, to McCafe.

    I sincerely doubt that Burning Man is what it is because of the Service Mark that isn't enforced unless exploitive (Burners Gone Wild) If it were enforced, From T-Shirt Camp, to Panty-Camp, to every boob that gets 'the man' drawn on it, would be in violation.

    I get what he's trying to base his case on... yes yes, the man belongs to everyone (though most specifically, US, the burners, however sprawling our numbers) And the best way to do this, is to "own it" as it is, and selectively enforce it. So that if "Coca Cola" makes "Burning Man Cola" there is some mechanisims to stop that...

    (though I'm curious what M2's legal action was, since this one is likely a direct response to it)

    I wish all the organizers, and citizens of black rock city the strength to out down their lawsuits, and understand what is best for all the citizens of Black Rock City.
    • A lawyer and burner who actually read through Law's filing pointed out that his filing contradicts his public statement. The legal filing would essentially allow Law to make money off of BM.

      "However in the relief section of his legal complaint he asks the
      court to transfer ownership of the Burning Man trademarks from Burning
      Man LLC to a Limited partnership of which he'd own 1/3. He then asks
      that BM LLC have to pay "fair market license fee" to continue to use
      the name and his "share of fair market licensing fee for all past *un
      compensated and under-compensated* uses of the terms "Burning Man"
      Decompession" "Blck Rock City" and "Flambe Lounge" ". Which, it seems
      to me means he wants BM LLC to pay him a fee based on what they *could
      have charged* for Use of the BM name. (by his estimation 300,000 to
      $100,000,000 for the 2006 burn alone)"

      Whatever the reasons, Law is trying to get paid. He has filed for financial relief for the percieved damages which are probably well in excess of whatever he put into it.

      I don't know any of the parties involved. I make no claims of friendship or insider knowledge. But it sounds to me like Law is trying to make money off of Burning Man. Maybe he deserves some, but by his own admission he left in 1996 and I don't know any companies that pay you after you quit. If he wanted to be rewarded for his efforts, if he really believed, he should have stuck around and fought for what he believed in, not quit and turned to lawyers ten years later when BM became financially succesful and marketable.

      And also, as others mentioned if the Burning Man trademarks and copyrights actually did become public domain then everyone would start capitalizing on it. People and Corporations have already tried. The trademarks and copyrights cab also help protect you the participant from being exploited by underhanded photographers and videographers. There are legal avenues to protect against that, but I think in that situation, the more the merrier.
      • Re: News Flash: BM Founder John Law sues Burning Man

        Wed, January 10, 2007 - 10:12 AM
        << by his own admission he left in 1996 and I don't know any companies that pay you after you quit. >>

        It's not uncommon for employees to be compensated after they leave. But that doesn't matter here, because this is about intellectual property. John retained intellectual property rights in the trademarks after he left by virtue of the operating agreement (I think). I tried to read the whole 35 page document but glazed over most of it.

        I made an html copy (I hate pdf) if anyone wants to take a stab at reading it.

        www.famouslibrarian.com/ref/jo...nt.html
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: News Flash: BM Founder John Law sues Burning Man

          Wed, January 10, 2007 - 10:32 AM
          *stab*
          • Re: News Flash: BM Founder John Law sues Burning Man

            Wed, January 10, 2007 - 10:45 AM
            Y'all should read it, as it's pretty interesting, if only as a historical document shedding a little insight into the Great Creation Myth of Baker Beach.
            While I can't speak to the history, or legality, or validity of the claims, I can tell you (or, more to the point, John's attorney) for the last time that "principle" is a noun, not an adjective. It's your PRINCIPAL place of business, one stand on PRINCIPLE. Even in the Principal's office.
            Sorry. it bugs me.
            And, I choose to own my Burning Man experience, whomever owns the trademark. This lawsuit seems to me to be more about money and/or ego cloaked in populism than bringing power to the people, er, participants.
            ~e
            • Re: News Flash: BM Founder John Law sues Burning Man

              Wed, January 10, 2007 - 11:20 AM
              On the face of it, one would think John Law's been screwed and worse, forgotten, but then it's his complaint. Yeah: great as a historical document, but really: the basis of it IS a complete commodification of BM: trade dress? Intellectual property rights notwithstanding, I shudder to think where this direction will take the event. I'd say that 2007 is not the year to take "off".
              • Re: News Flash: BM Founder John Law sues Burning Man

                Wed, January 10, 2007 - 11:28 AM
                Yeah, but if you read the brief he's saying that either that trade dress and mark should go to the public, or it should go back to the original three-way ownership between him, M2, and Larry. Remember what prompted all of this is that it seems M2 is suing Larry over something, and John is being dragging into that case. If you read his blog post he mentions it, but I sadly haven't seen or heard any details about that. This is John's response to those event, I believe, which haven't really been made public yet. Prior to judging John on this one I'd wait until those other details are public personally...
      • <Maybe he deserves some, but by his own admission he left in 1996 and I don't know any companies that pay you after you quit.>

        But at the time he quit, he made it clear that he was to remain an equal partner in the use of the Burning Man name. That's what Paper Man LLC is all about. The LLC was formed to keep the Burning Man trademark, which we call can see has become very valuable. It doesn't matter that John Law is no longer actively involved in running the show. He points out how he built up equity in the Paper Man company by virtue of his finding the desert location, convincing Larry to get involved, building the neon man, etc.

        And what's more, Michael Mikel and Larry Harvey have acknowledged that position by annually licensing the Burning Man name from Paper Man each year. So, they're admitting that it has value and that John Law is 1/3 owner of that mark.
      • <If he wanted to be rewarded for his efforts, if he really believed, he should have stuck around and fought for what he believed in, not quit and turned to lawyers ten years later when BM became financially succesful and marketable. >

        He only turned to this remedy after Larry Harvey refused to pay for the use of the Burning Man name as he had done in the past. Larry Harvey does not own the Burning Man name. The partnership owns it.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: News Flash: BM Founder John Law sues Burning Man

    Wed, January 10, 2007 - 11:17 AM
    *yawn*

    Tell him to just go throw a soltice party on a beach somewhere and be done with it.
    • Re: News Flash: BM Founder John Law sues Burning Man

      Wed, January 10, 2007 - 12:09 PM
      I know I want to give all the respect and awe to the three "founders" of the Burningman idea and the beauty that has come from it, but you boys are making it much harder for me now. Despite all the history, details, explanations, arbitrations, "commodifications" - what have you - ........ at some level you three are at present betraying ALL the citizens of Black Rock by dragging this into the courts !!!

      Perhaps it is ultimately necessary some how and we/ I can't see it presently. Or perhaps you should turn in your Hippie cards and wear a T-shirt saying "I have seem to lost something and need to find it again, BUT need lots lots lots of MONEY to help find it !" One thing I do know for sure, it sure hurts to watch this shit ......(and you left the TV on, I can't turn the damn thing off.)
      • Perhaps, if everyone would have acted according to the burningman ideal originally, this wouldn't have gone to the courts.
        • Personally< i'm looking forward to

          Wed, January 10, 2007 - 3:29 PM
          KraftMan Macaroni and Cheese.

          The macaroni will be in the shape of the man (arms up, arms down, one arm up) and flames and the temple and a (trademark) stetson. There will be new playafied flavors--vodka and wasabi, bacon, and playa vegan with soy "cheese." And if you eat 500 boxes, you can make your own man and burn it!
          • DVD
            DVD
            offline 3

            Re: Personally< i'm looking forward to

            Wed, January 10, 2007 - 3:40 PM
            If Burning Man LLC could take over Cracker Jack and get some good "Toy Surprises" back in there... I'd buy.
            • Re: Personally< i'm looking forward to

              Wed, January 10, 2007 - 3:44 PM
              <If Burning Man LLC could take over Cracker Jack and get some good "Toy Surprises" back in there... I'd buy. >

              LLC trading cards. build your own mini temple. an art car series. Moop flavored chewing gum. glow sticks. tiny plastic rangers and dpw workers.
              • DVD
                DVD
                offline 3

                Re: Personally< i'm looking forward to

                Wed, January 10, 2007 - 4:29 PM
                Do the DPW figures wind up and toss beer cans at you? I'm in!
                • Re: Personally< i'm looking forward to

                  Wed, January 10, 2007 - 4:33 PM
                  <Do the DPW figures wind up and toss beer cans at you? I'm in!>

                  yes! They even drink tiny cans of PBR and aggresively pee on your feet, while yelling at you through bullhorns. Nanotech at its finest. Too bad about the stereotypes, but we all know Crackerjack is stale.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Personally< i'm looking forward to

                    Wed, January 10, 2007 - 4:40 PM
                    Oh, I forgot the "It was better last year" charms.
                    • BM responds to Law suit

                      Wed, January 10, 2007 - 6:40 PM
                      www.burningman.com/news/joh...t_07.html

                      BURNING MAN RESPONDS TO JOHN LAW COMPLAINT

                      On January 8, 2007, LaughingSquid.com announced that John Law, one of the original three owners of Burning Man, has filed suit against his former partners Larry Harvey and Michael Michael over the ownership of the Burning Man name, image, and likeness. (link: click here)

                      Maid Marian responds:

                      On behalf of the volunteers, staff, and board of Black Rock City, I wanted to comment on the lawsuit filed by John Law regarding the Burning Man name, image, and likeness.

                      First, about this suit. The issue is a legal disagreement between people who've known each other a long time, and it will get resolved.

                      Secondly, about the event. We've gotten questions from a number of participants asking "Is this the end of the event?" The answer is "No". We are moving full steam ahead for Burning Man 2007, and we will be back in the Black Rock Desert this August -- count on it.

                      Finally, about the idea raised in the lawsuit of putting the Burning Man name and image in the public domain. While the concept is interesting, the reality is that we've been fighting attempts by corporations to exploit the Burning Man name almost since the first day we set foot on the playa. Making Burning Man freely available to individuals who would only use it to make money would go against everything all of us have worked for over the years. We will not let that happen.

                      We've created a desert oasis free of corporate sponsorship and marketing, a place where interactions aren't intermediated by commerce. More than that, we've created a global community of people who share values of radical self-reliance, self expression, and civic responsibility. Burning Man is more than a place or an event, it is an idea. That idea is worth protecting, preserving and defending, and that's what we'll continue to do while we work out this disagreement.

                      Thank you for your understanding, and we look forward to seeing you at the 2007 event.

                      -Marian Goodell
                      Director of Communications
                      Black Rock City, LLC
                      • Re: BM responds to Law suit

                        Wed, January 10, 2007 - 9:28 PM
                        Marian has her head up her ass.
                        There are many ways of legaly releasing a tradmark into public domain with the stipulation that it cannot be used comercially so her whole argument is a bugaboo.
                        This is not to diss the hard work of many or the event itself just me calling her on her lame inaccurate rhetoric.
                        Note how official bm posts sound more like crafted works of professional publicists than actual attempts at honest and open communication. I never understood why since the event is no evil thing. I think its becouse of some folks being locked into a corporate paridign and pretending they aren't becouse its BM.
                        I have to say they tend to fuck their own gods. Then there are those serpent dunes fucking it up for all the other users of the desert and the big evil blm payoffs and federal law enforcement prescence. Ah but thats a whole other issue- never mind. (or do your own research!)
                        tym simpson
                        9 year dpw managment veteran
                        4 year independant of such
              • Re: Personally< i'm looking forward to

                Wed, January 10, 2007 - 10:28 PM
                << Moop flavored chewing gum >>

                Careful there, the moop trademark is currently in registration. I got some papers from the examining attorney just the other day. Soon I have have the Moop empire of chewing gum for your enjoyment. JUST KIDDING but maybe.

                Hahaha reading the complaint makes me realize that my application for the moop trademark is probably going to be easy to challenge, if there are any other potential moopers out there.
  • Hang on a minute, how are these guys different from all of us - "oh, its all about ego and money, Burning Man isnt what it used to be, they are just being greedy" - like these guys are operating from another place that you guys wouldnt tread.

    Why didnt you guys have insight into these people, knowing they would get this way, and always had it in them, back in Baker Beach times. When we are all artists, anarchists and creatives etc, and we are all pretty much poor, we are all united. Since we are all in a similar position, including financial, we help each other out.

    So 3 guys out of the large network of creatives strike it lucky, to be in the right place at the right time, and are able to officicate what they have been working at.

    Now it comes to this, and Larry, John & M2 are to be strung & hung for bringing BM into the quagmire of the outside world.

    While we all deny that we are not part of the outside world, or that BM is somehow isolated from it, these 'surprises' will keep happening.

    Cirque du Soleil is another great example of a similar energy. CdS was started from a grant to the Quebec Govt to put on a circus show. Who started it? Firebreathers, stilt walkers & jugglers from the streets around Montreal. Now, they are accused of crap pay scales, centring power in their own hierachy and being McCircus. Really???? So, right, lets see, if they are doing this now - and by that we assume that they are wrong for doing this - then they always had it in them.
    You'll hardly get an appointment with Guy Laliberte these days, but back then, no sweat. He was probably coming back from putting the hat out on rue St Catherine hoping to eat for the week.
    That would have been the best time to hit him with it "Guy, you and your org. of a future CdS are going to be capitalist bastards. Look at you! Its in you. Its you" meaning no one else.

    Anyway anyway.....I'm not surprised, and I wish those who act ethically in this case all the success. Maybe now its to court, people will get more real about it, and see that we are all infallable. Coz we were all poor buggers at one time. And some arent now....
    • DVD
      DVD
      offline 3
      "While we all deny that we are not part of the outside world, or that BM is somehow isolated from it, these 'surprises' will keep happening."

      Mmm mmm good(tm). Agreed. Larry's thing always seems to be to live in the world with Burning Man, not in spite of it.

      You wanna get tangential- as others have hinted at, *I* think this is all a big scheme to get people excited and revved up for next year. Larry, m2 and John all seemed to be missing the day La Contessa burned... coincidence? A sacrifice to the great Burning God?

      Only time will tell.
  • This post was deleted by TOU (Terms of Use)
  • Unsu...
     
    Between reading the lawsuit and the blog, it is obvious there is power struggle to the ownership of the BM name.

    The lawsuit is basically forcing people to play nice. Either no one owns the Burning Man name or all 3 do equally as their original agreement.

    John says he has never gain any economic advantages that Michael and Larry have received from the IP. The licensing fee has been woefully under valued, and Larry, who is in acting board member of both the licensee and licensor has misrepresented the licensor at a disadvantage.

    John is only asking for his fair share. Also people should realize, even though there is a suggestion the licensee fee is worth 300k to 1million for 2006, it does not mean that John would see all of that money. He would only receive 1/3 of the profits as to their partnership agreement.

Recent topics in "Burning Man"