Do it like they do on the 'Discovery Channel'...

[Bungiti]

I am concerned about a violation to my right to privacy.

You waived your right to privacy the minute you walked out of the door of your home. Anyone walking in public is subject to have their picture taken. If you disagree, stay indoors.

[Killbuck]

I prefer to stay in my bunker, 16 stories below the surface of a defunked test site. It's cozy though.

[Kinetic IV]

Now that was a great shot. Thanks Kernul!

[Chai Guy]

You waived your right to privacy the minute you walked out of the door of your home. Anyone walking in public is subject to have their picture taken. If you disagree, stay indoors.

Take my picture on a public street? Sure you can, however no one can use these images for commercial gain without my express written permission. (this is why Discovery Channel had people running around with clip boards getting people to sign their rights away).

Read 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:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... /12-a.html


More reading for you:
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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_ ... 26_purpose

[Bungiti]

Chai: I'll preface my comments by stating that i do not know much about this area of the law. However, reading more of what was on the link you posted from the Stanford site seems to suggest that the Discovery channel did not use the images for a commercial use.

From the website: "A release is needed for the commercial use of a person's name or image. A "commercial use" occurs when selling or endorsing a product or service. For example, if your website offers haircutting products and you feature pictures of people using the products, you would need a release from the people in the photos. A release is not required if the person cannot be recognized in the photo, for example, if the photo only includes the person's hands. Several decades ago, the failure to obtain the release would have led to an invasion of privacy lawsuit. However, the "right of publicity" has now become the claim de jour for those whose name or image is used for commercial purposes."

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... /12-b.html

The page also talks about informational use and the fact that no release is needed for informational use unless defamatory, it discloses private facts, portrays someone in a false light or intrudes on ones right to seclusion.

In short, informational uses are uses that are protected as free speech under the 1st amendment. The documentary shot by the discovery channel could be classified as an informational use. However, if the ab lounger company that had an ad during the broadcast used any of the burning man/participant footage to sell the ab lounger, then it would be commercial speech and could require a release. I don't believe the fact that the "documentary" was shown along with commercials changes the informational nature of the "documentary." I would argue that this is akin to writing a newspaper article about DaBomb’s participation at burning man in the print version of the New York times and placing the article next to advertisements.

[Chai Guy]

Bungiti, I too am not a legal expert, however, I do have some thoughts.


1. "Only in America" is not a documentary, it's a reality television "series" (even the New York Times, Discovery's partner makes reference to the fact in their first review of the show).

2. If "Only in America" was operating as a "news" crew, they wouldn't have bothered getting signed releases from anyone. (If you've ever been interviewed by a newspaper or tv news crew then you know they don't ask you to sign a release).

3. It looks like Discovery Channel has been down this road before:
http://www.forbes.com/digitalentertainm ... ntary.html

[DaBomb]

You waived your right to privacy the minute you walked out of the door of your home. Anyone walking in public is subject to have their picture taken. If you disagree, stay indoors.

For many, like myself, Burning Man is home. Didn't your greeter tell you? "Welcome home!" I for one don't want a television show filming in the middle of the living room.

Check your facts. Burning Man is not a street fair. Burning Man is a private event.

I and thousands of other participants pay for the privilege to attend this event. If someone who pays several hundred dollars to go to a private party and drives hundreds of miles into the middle of the desert doesn't have a reasonable right to privacy, then I don't know who does.

[Bungiti]

Chai:

I would counter by arguing that the question is not whether subjectively we think of the show as just a tv show or a documentary. It seems that the important question is whether the "speech" (broadly defined to include film) is protected under the constitution. That question however is beyond my expertise, although i may look into it some more (if someone has the answer however...)

As for the releases, they might have been a precautionary move, after all why prove you were right by litigation (lots of money) if you can easily get a waiver from people, just in case.

Lastly, the lawsuit mentioned in the article is still pending, not withstanding that, the suit dealt with filming in a hospital were people were getting medical treatment. Even I would agree that there should be an expectation of privacy when getting medical treatment. :wink:

Thank you for your thoughts!

[Bungiti]

Da Bomb: I know that the greeters say “welcome home” when one arrives, I still remember the sting from the spanking. :D This however does not change the fact that ones reasonable expectation of privacy walking down the esplanade is not the same as to the expectation of privacy in my home. The fact that an event is private does not, for example, change the 4th amendment rights of an individual. That is why LEOs walk around the event. If the event were private in a legal way the LEOs would have to be outside the gate. However, LEOs cannot go into my tent w/o a warrant (or other justification) because for that week i am on the playa that tent IS my home. Along this line, if discovery then takes pictures of me inside my tent w/o my permission, then i would say that they are intruding into my privacy.

[Kinetic IV]

Even I would agree that there should be an expectation of privacy when getting medical treatment. :wink:

Unfortunately not everyone feels that way and it makes dealing with medical issues even more of a pain than it already is. </rant>

[theCryptofishist]

Even I would agree that there should be an expectation of privacy when getting medical treatment. :wink:

Unfortunately not everyone feels that way and it makes dealing with medical issues even more of a pain than it already is. </rant>

It's called a HPA (HIPA? HPPA?) violation.

[Bungiti]

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

[DaBomb]

The fact that an event is private does not, for example, change the 4th amendment rights of an individual. That is why LEOs walk around the event. If the event were private in a legal way the LEOs would have to be outside the gate.

No, that's not why, Bungiti. I'm not sure what the acronym for LEO stands for, but if you're referring to law enforcement specifically BLM, Washoe County Sheriff and the Pershing County Sheriff (and the dozens of other law enforcement bodies), they are there because a private event is held on public land.

So, in other words: Burning Man is a private party with entrance fees to keep out the riff raff that's held on government owned property.

The issue of privacy as it pertains to unwanted media exposure is not relevant to law enforcement at the event.

Discovery is contractually bound to produce a signed waiver when they used my image of which I can guarantee they are unable to produce as evidence. I did not waive release of my image. It is being used without my permission, without my consent and it violates the agreement Disco has with Burning Man.

[Lassen Forge]

I need to double check this (and I don't have time tonite - my booboola and I are valentine-ing!)but I think, if I remember, by purchasing and using your ticket to enter the event, you actually *do* assign your rights to the llc for whatever purpose they decide, including marketing and publicity. I remember reading wording to that effect somewhere - I just need to make sure it was Burning Man where I read it. MOST events have that kind of "release clause" on purchasing and using your ticket - it's how they can do "cover art" for albums and whatnot without getting 50,000 releases...

If it's so stated, and you did buy the ticket and then use it to gain admission, it's considered a waiver of certain things - one of which is use of your image. Being that the llc then can assign *it's* right to that image, you have, as such, released those whom the llc releases, including the times or discovery or whoever their production parent is...

I'll check tomorrow, and get back here.

bb

[DaBomb]

The Back of the Ticket:

YOU VOLUNTARILY ASSUME THE RISK OF SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH B ATTENDING THIS EVENT AND RELEASE BURNING MAN FROM ANY CLAIM ARISING FROM THIS RISK.

You must bring enough food, water, shelter and first aid to survive one week in a harsh desert environment.

Commericial vending is prohibited as are all firearms, fireworks, rockets and other explosives.

You agree to abide by ALL rules in the Survival Guide and to lfollow federal, state and local laws.

This is a LEAVE NO TRACE pack it in pack it OUT event.

You are asked to contribute 2 hours of playa clean up in adddition to your own camp before your departure.

Art cars, art installations, theme camps and performances are not owned and operated by Burning Man and you there for assume allrisk of injury associated with or arising from their operation or occurence.

You appoint Burning Man as your representative to take actions necessary to protect your intellectual property or privacy rights recognizing that Burning Man has no obligations to take such actions whatsoever.

All vehicles including trucks, trailers and RVs entering and exiting Burning Man are subject to search by the Gate staff.

Tickets are non-refundable even if the event is terminated early or cancled due to harsh weather, acts of nature, governmental regulation or other conditions beyond Burning Man's control.

This ticket is a revocable license that may be revoked by Burning Man for any reason.

The use of images taken at Burning Man (other than personal use) is prohibited without the prior written consent of Burning Man.

So besides the fact that it is illegal for my bomb-ness to attend this event, nowhere did you or I waive a right to privacy. In fact, we appoint BM to take actions necessary to protect our rights on our behalf.

[Chai Guy]

Actually what the ticket says is:

"You appoint Burning Man as your representative to take actions necessary to protect your intellectual property or privacy rights, recognizing that Burning Man has no obligation to take any action whatsoever!"

In a recent interview with Andie Grace, we asked if that precluded an individual from taking action independently of Burning Man in the event someone infringed on a participant's intellectual or privacy rights and she stated clearly that it did not. She went on to say that the statement on the ticket simply enabled the organization to file an action against people profiting from images taken at the event without being able to personally identify the subjects in the image(s).

You can download the interview and listen for yourself here;
http://nospectators.com/burncasts/Burncast_1.m4a

It is a large file 30.9 mb, so it might take some time to download

[Bungiti]

Da bomb:
The fact that the event occurs on public land reinforces my argument. Since it is public land the police have a right to be there whether the event is labeled private or not.

Furthermore, since the land in question is public land owned by the government one cannot possible have an expectation of privacy while being on the land, unless as I mentioned before, I am camping there and then my tent is my home. The fact that the event is labeled “private” by some individuals does not change this. The only consequence of a “private” party is that the host can revoke the permission for you to be inside. I would imagine that if burning man took place in Larry Harvey’s home (and did not charge admission thus invoking the 1st amendment right of association) then the land is private and the party is also private. In this situation there might be a stronger claim of a right to privacy giving you grounds to sue discovery

On the other hand, if Burning man took place just as it is, but in central park in New York (notwithstanding nudity laws, etc.) and I were on one of the buildings overlooking the park, I could take all the pictures of the “private” event because it is in public.

Thus I would conclude the question turns on whether the land you are in is public or private and not whether the event is private.

(by the way, i started listening to the podcast but have not yet finished, but so far sounds good. thanks! :D )

[Chai Guy]

The whole police thing isn't really a good arguement either way. The event has a police presence because it's part of the contract with the BLM to hold the event. Many private events with large groups of people are required to have police present, for example most major league sporting events take place on privately owned property and yet police are there as part of the stipulation for having a large scale event.

And again, the issue isn't wether someone can photograph you or not, the issue is what they can do with that photograph.

[Badger]

It's called a HPA (HIPA? HPPA?) violation.

You're spot on about that Crypto. HIPAA (Health Information Privacy Protection Act). The re-write which was enacted in April of 2004. Makes it a crime for medical providers to divulge information on a patient's case unless otherwise given permission by the patient or the patient's primary care provider.

It actually makes things a bit more complicated for us on the playa for Rangers/EMT's when someone in a camp gets hurt, injured, treated of driven to Reno because legally we can't divulge any information on the condition, treatment or even acknowledge that we know of the person in question. I guess this is a good point to mention to people who're putting together a camp that a signed release is often in order to present to medical professional so that basic questions (who, where did they go, what are they been treated for, what's their condition, etc.) can be answered by trained staff when you realize that your camp mate should have been back at the tent 15 hours ago.

Any expectation of privacy is valid WHEN the person in question 1) specifically states that they do NOT want information divulged to other individuals or professionals 2) the patient is unable to give permission of treatment/diagnosis or current medical condition. If unable to provide permission(s) HIPPA defaults to - and assumes - that privacy is paramount. HIPAA does not apply to patients in who have made public statements - false or misleading - of disease, malady, handicaped, physical limitation, coma (yeh, RIGHT), etc. for purposes of garnering sympathy, pity, social contact or general acceptance, a place within a theme camp, or social contact(s) with memebers of the Burning Man community. More eggregious is hiding behind HIPAA (wink!) when such very public *'disclosures' on other BBS boards come almost immediately on the heels of a BM participant who was indeed stricken by cancer but supported and attended to throughout his very courageous fight by members of the particualr BBS. Unfortunately said **participant and friend eventually succomed to his disease. Personally, I don't believe HIPAA was enacted for the purposes of socially handicapped people to hide behind for the purpose of engendering pity-based social interaction. Your interpretation of the law may vary.

*AKA the hand waving 'Me-Too! Me-Too' clause.

** Read it and weep folks. http://bbs.3playa.com/?view_thread=77&start=1

NOTE: the opinions expressed and the understanding of the law does not suggest nor should it be implied as an interpretation of a position held by either the Burning Man LLC or any of its volunteers.

[Badger]

one cannot possible have an expectation of privacy while being on the land

Bungiti, actually a reasoble expectation of privacy can and should be expected by any participant on public lands. The slippery slope comes in defining reasonable. Puffing a fatty among 25 of your best friends in a theme camp might reasonably be argued to be a public event. Doing most anything inside your tent with the doors closed and your sleeping bag laid out so that public view of the 'activiteis' happening within are intentionally obstructed is quite another story.

[Kinetic IV]

Hey Ray....in your zeal to mount another veiled attack on me under the disguise of providing helpful information....did you know that PJ was instrumental in helping me through my situation? He saw the double standard going on and found a place in his heart to help me when others in the so called "vaunted community" turned their back on me...and for the record like yourself still have. Fucking hypocrite.

The bottom line on this is I wouldn't still be here if it wasn't for that man. Did you read that? Does your wacked out, single track fuck Kinetic over anyway I possibly can mindset have the ability to grasp that? The same man you claimed as a friend is a key reason I am alive today. Now why don't you go shut the fuck up because you don't know jack shit about everything that went on in my case...which is what that last paragraph in your post was really all about...my condition.

And thanks for posting that link...it will be nice to let others see just how discriminatory, biased, gutless, and ethically challenged you really are. And still am...3 years of discrimination. And you think you should be wearing the TAN and should be looked up to? Please, if there's anyone who needs pity now it's you.

[Rockdad]

Been watching/Lurking this thread for awhile just thought I would add this pic for clarity..............

[Ivy]

I respectfully request that both of you leave PJ out of your personal petty little bullshit internet arguments.

Don't respond. Just take the action.




You may now resume talking about Burning Man on the Discovery Times channel.

[DVD Burner]

Been watching/Lurking this thread for awhile just thought I would add this pic for clarity..............

BWWWAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA!




i have to admit. I did not like you at all Rock but you have made an excellent point.



That does not mean that I still do not like you........

[Kinetic IV]

Discrimination is never petty. And silence is not an option. I suppose we should stay silent about the camera guy taking pictures of you? You felt violated, I do too.

That being said back to the topic we go.

[spectabillis]

This is fucking disgusting.

[the fire elf]

This is fucking disgusting.

could be worse...

[Bob]

I'm confused...

did Discovery have a program on Munchausen syndrome by proxy?

[Kinetic IV]

Nice try Bob. Stick to engineering, medical is not your strength.

[Chai Guy]

Uh, Bob? It's Discovery Channel OK? Next week they're going to be filming an episode about the lint in your belly button. Of Course they've had a show on Munchausen syndrome by proxy!


http://discoverychannel.co.in/poisonous ... ndex.shtml