copywrite violation?

[Zona_the_stona]

it looks like one of the pics in the flyer was taken at burning man.

[spectabillis]

Damn, surprised you caught that, good eye.

People ripping others pics is pretty common, not to say its right because I personally dont agree with it. I dont think this has been brought up on the board before - I dont even know what the org policy surrounding the issue is.

If they had permission from the photographer and artist who created it, would not be an issue. Doubt thats the case though.

Wait! Cameragrl, thats it! Need to ask her.

[Zona_the_stona]

I believe the guy throwing this party used a picture he took himself. After bringing it up on another board he said it was his own photo and that he would be making a purple panda village in 2006. I guess it's not a big deal really, it's not like he's using the logo or anything.

[Kinetic IV]

http://www.burningman.com/press/pressRandR.html#bmanRR

You may use any images that you obtained at the event only for personal use. No commercial use whatsoever may be made of any such images.

The guidelines on the rules page seem very simple to me. The flyer is for a commercial event, is it not?

[Dustdevil]

One of the artists that created "Passage" is Dan Das Mann. I spoke with him yesterday. He was not yet aware of this and had not granted permission to use his work in this commercial application. He is investigating the matter.

[actiongrl]

Please forward this and other things like it to press@burningman.com so our team can take appropriate actions.

Thanks!

[spectabillis]

Please forward this and other things like it to press@burningman.com so our team can take appropriate actions.Thanks!

Thanks for the feedback since we now know how to approach it, I didn't know so I also sent a note to cameragrl.

[Kinetic IV]

Kinda going off on a slight tangent I was out shopping tonight and I came across something that sure looks like an image taken from the playa.



Would this warrant notifying the people that AG suggested? I don't want to cause a stink if it's not necessary so a second, third, or 14th opinion would be welcome.

[helitack]

So is the LLC saying that photographs that I made while on the playa during the event, where the only identifying feature is a flat lake bed with nothing except my model, is subject to their rules? That if they got hold of one of them, they could use it for BM publicity? I own the photograph and the copyright.

[Isotopia]

I own the photograph and the copyright.

With the caveat that if you use them for purposes of commercial benefit that you have to get permission is, I believe, the basic agreement laid out. I may be WAY off the mark here but I believe that's how it works.

[Eric]

So is the LLC saying that photographs that I made while on the playa during the event, where the only identifying feature is a flat lake bed with nothing except my model, is subject to their rules? That if they got hold of one of them, they could use it for BM publicity? I own the photograph and the copyright.

From the Burning Man website:

Finally, you need to read the fine print on the ticket. "The commercial use of photographs, video, film or any other medium taken at Burning Man is prohibited without permission of Burning Man."

http://www.burningman.com/press/faq.html#credentials

This doesn't mean the LLC owns your copyright, but by the terms you agree to by purchasing the ticket, they can control how those photos are used. I wouldn't worry if you're just doing a website, but if you have dreams of "Critical Tits Goes Wild" videos, you might be in for a surprise.

I'm not quite sure how the rules apply if you're selling prints as art pieces. I think it's okay, but I would think that you'd really want to get clarification first.

If you're using an image of a friend on the playa with no identifying Burning Man things in it, and don't claim it's from Burning Man, you can pretty much do what you want with it. Who's to say you didn't just go to the playa on your own and take it, or take it during Juplaya.....

[helitack]

What ticket?

[Lassen Forge]

It seems to me...

They only control images that relate directly to the Burning Man event.

If there are no identifying features showing that it was taken in part and parcel of the Burning Man Event then you're way free and clear - they do NOT own nor have exclusive right to images of the entire Black Rock Desert, just of their event.

So,,, does that mean if I throw on my Apokiliptika duds and go hang with some fellow apokiliptikans out at Black Rock and shoot some pix, does the llc control those pix? Nope, for even tho the pix were taken at Black Rock Desert (not the city) And Apokiliptika maintains a presence within BRC (our ever-expanding zone of occupation) both are entities seperate from (and not beholden to) the llc for anything other than space and the limitations they put on using that space (their licensing agreement on the back of the itcket)in the area and during the time they control that area.

No more than the llc controls (for example) the footage various and sundry auto manufacturers use to sell their cars in advertisements shot in the Black Rock Desert.

Now... the BLM *may* have some stipulations on how you may use *their* land, but I think it's a non-issue, as long as there's no ifeatures identifying it as being within the llc "zone of Control" (BRC and it's environs)... like the trash fence in the background, using something that was obviously part of Burning Man, Etc.

Then again, the art itself is the property of the artist, not of the llc. Who says the artist cannot take photos of their art and later either market those photos (as long as there's nothing involving the llc, in contrast to just a ref to the Black Rock Desert, in those photos) or use them as part of their portfolio to market their other art (or art conceptions).

I'll give you my example. I'm doing some conceptual art using pictures taken out in the black rock desert of something which *is* directly (and kinda obviously) relaed to the Burning man event but was *not* taken during the event (in fact it was months before) or under the license of a BRC ticket. Does the llc govern those pix? As much as they may like to, they can't - the art photoed was the property of the artists (which was NOT BM llc, btw) on public land, based on an image in the public domain.

It is indeed a sticky legal problem, but it seems that Heli's pix (some of which I have seen and personally think are pretty awesome), which while taken adjacent to the llc event, as long as they were not taken of the event or within the confines of the event (or under the terms of your contract - that ticket you bought) are his to do as he wishes - sell, trade, post, or burn.

As they say... read the back of your ticket. CAREFULLY. Not only for what it controls, but more importantly, what it doesn't.

Hugs,
bb

__________

The above is opinion only, and may not carry any weight whatsoever. It is not construed to be legal advice, for which one needs to seek the services of a licensed attorney. Post no bills. Caevat Empetor. Look both ways before crossing the street, etc., etc.

[helitack]

After further thought on this subject and having just the other day prevented some commercial film people from stopping visitors taking photographs of their product on public land, I don't think the LLC has the legal right to stop anyone from making or using photographs at BM. I would like to see the Federal Law which allows them to say they can.

[Lassen Forge]

WHen all is said and done, it's up to the BLM. The llc *may* have a claim *if* you were within the confines of their event on their permitted property. BUT... you may have something, as since the Black Rock desert IS public land (and a BLM trust) and as such they cannot control what is done outside their permitted area. Like I said, they *may* be renting the space around the BRC site but it's public land. Then again, the BLM sets up exclusionary zones with certain restrictions (such as the no-firearm thing) before, during, and after the event.

I'm split... I'd hate to see it end up in the courts (esp. because you're a dear friend!) but if it went that far it'd be settled. Maybe I ought to read the ticket and the BLM pdermits closely...

You *do* have a precedent, tho... just like us, nothing can stop the public from taking pix on public land, no matter how or who's using it. We get papparazzi doing that on the bridge during movie and TV show shoots all the time.

Hugs 2 you,
bb sue

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Well here's a different type of copyright violation. This company is using the BM photographer contributing page in it HTML source list to get searcher's of certain photographers to go to their web site's sex directory listings.

I don't like being used to get people to go to sex sites instead of mine or even to be associated with a sex site.

What can the Bmorg do about this?

check out: http://gallery-mature-picture.hightool.net.ru/ and view it in the source view.

AIIZ

[spectabillis]

I would say go through the same process that Actiongrl pointed out and followup here if something lacks in the response. I hate to admit, but this is something I dont think anyone can do something about, but I also think thats lame.

*.ru is a serious pain.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Action is being taken by the Bmorg now. We'll see what happens, but it's a copyright violation.

AIIZ

[spectabillis]

Thanks for the update AZ, I am definately interested in hearing what comes of this.

[DoctorIknow]

I'm not a lawyer, but I paid two of them a small fortune to see where I stood as a possible defendant in a copyright violation. I engaged them before I used material. (Not BM related material, btw)

I found, in MY particular situation, I could print as many photographs and sell as many as I wanted to of images that SOME might interpret as copyrighted material, BUT, if I advertised using that image, I could have gotten nailed, especially as my pockets have insufficient depth to go the distance.

However, if I wanted to engage, the plaintiff would have to show actual monetary damages, which usually boils down to "how much did I, the defendant, make from the violation." Also, if there was still "inventory" of said violation, I'd have to surrender it. Other damages ("hurt the image and brand" or "emotional damage") are nearly impossible to get a hint of what might happen in court. Reading stacks of judgments in cases all over the country doesn't help determine what might happen to YOUR situation, be you plaintiff or defendant.

I believe the BM policy, written on the tickets, is to make their position clear and HELP all participants understand the BM position so that honest mistakes won't be made.


PS: I recently saw a thread where somebody was jumpin' all up and down 'cause some forum out there had a tiny "Man" image, but when I went to that persons web site (they are a commercial photographer and the site was commercially oriented) low and behold there were images "from a remote Nevada desert!" LOL

[Badger]

Do NOT click the above link/URL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AntiM]

And if you don't reply right behind such a spam post, I can scan the Last Post column and snag them that much quicker, thanks.