Afterburn Feedback 2k5 "our participants do not underst

Niacin · Post by **Niacin** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:59 am

The complete quote from the JRS is "A group of non Media Department staff, who were troubled about the Discovery Times piece, discussed the decision to allow Discovery Times to film. The staff members concluded that after analyzing the decision they felt the problem is that our participants do not understand our media selection process."

Does this mean that since the DT channel's production met the media selection guidelines and approved of after the Board had reviewed the work per the use agreement; we're going to see more of this type of documentary/film being produced? Wouldn't this be the exact strip-mining of creativity and dissolution of culture that the LLC promises to protect against when we agree to give all rights over our art to BM, or am I completely off my nut here?

This last q may be in the wrong section, but I'll put it here since the idea is in the same vein: According to the press page linked in the answer, Discovery Times had the same rights and responsibilties as a participant, no more and no less. If I put a "Let's all Discover® how to throw eggs at the Man" event in the Who What Where scheduled during the pyro load, what would happen to me? Would we be allowed to throw? Why didn't that happen to the DT crew?

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:51 pm

I like you Niacin.

Thanks for the thread.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:55 pm

Wouldn't this be the exact strip-mining of creativity and dissolution of culture that the LLC promises to protect against

That seems to be the money phrase ...

Maybe "the org" is still searching for validation from the rest of the world. Still being a little defensive ... "see, we aren't a big drug fest in the desert!" Maybe the time has come at 20 years old when Burning Man can finally say they don't need to justify their existance, they just are and they are fine with what they are and they don't need to explain themselves. If you want to know what it is about, then participate in the event. I believe the event has by now satisfied the federal government, local law enforcement, and thousands and thousands of people that they are a legitimate ... something ... not sure what it is but I am sure it is legitimate.

I don't think the org needs to evangelize, the participants do okay in that regard and I really don't think they need to be defensive, explain themselves, or require external validation for the event. It has served it's purpose, it has gained acceptance of all who matter, it can now go back to just being whatever it is.

I don't think we need any more non-participant documentaries.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:14 pm

can someone please post the entire relevant section of jrs with the links? i dont subscribe to that.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:17 pm

Ask and ye shall receive.....from the 03/31/06 JRS:

Q: Why did you guys condone the "Malcolm in the Middle" episode about
Burning Man? Is the Org making a ton of money from that show?

Some participants loved the "Malcolm in the Middle" episode about
Burning Man; others hated it. The organization was completely neutral
about this and did not promote, profit from, or try to prevent this
episode from airing. Although "Burning Man" is a registered trademark,
the First Amendment allows the public to comment upon and spoof Burning
Man because of the event's notoriety in the public eye. As a side
note--sure the episode was "cheesy;" but it's clear that the writers of
the episode "got" the meaning of Burning Man.

Q: Is it true that there was a reality TV show being filmed on playa
this year?

A rumor began before the event this year that the Discovery Channel
would be filming a reality TV show in Black Rock City. The show was
Discovery Times, which focuses on alternative culture, such as power
tool races, etc. Mainstream media has been coming to Burning Man for ten
years now. Recently the organization held our annual staff retreat for
over 100 of our managers. A group of non Media Department staff, who
were troubled about the Discovery Times piece, discussed the decision to
allow Discovery Times to film. The staff members concluded that after
analyzing the decision they felt the problem is that our participants do
not understand our media selection process. If you fall into this
category and want to learn more then please visit
<http://www.burningman.com/press/>.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:43 pm

who were troubled about the Discovery Times piece

thats not helpful, what about the piece 'troubled' them?

they felt the problem is that our participants do not understand our media selection process.

they had to hold a meeting to understand that, and still missed the fact that it was not the biggest problem?

<http://www.burningman.com/press/>

wrong page to link to, because here is what it says

The Press Here section of the Burning Man website is designed to help journalists prepare for the event. All media outlets must register with the organization prior to arriving on site. The media team is here to help, but the most important thing to remember is that you are a citizen of Black Rock City and are expected to comport yourself accordingly.

Please keep in mind that Burning Man is a private event. In response to our community, we allow only a limited number of film crews on site each year. All professional photographers, film crews, and video crews will be required to sign use agreements.

Registration forms for the 2006 event will be available early Spring in the Press Here section. You can read more about the rights and responsibilities of the media, artists, and all participants here: http://www.burningman.com/press/pressRandR.html

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:49 pm

from the press faq... http://www.burningman.com/press/faq.html

We get requests from publications and television shows for pictures and footage. We refer requests directly to photographers and videographers who have submitted imagery to us. They are free to negotiate usage fees as they see fit. We made more than two dozen such referrals in 2002.

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." The name Burning Man is trademark and copyright-protected and its use is also forbidden without permission. Commercial video and film crews will be asked to sign a site-usage agreement that includes the stipulation that 10 percent of your proceeds will be given to Burning Man should you obtain the organization’s sell your footage commercially. News crews with non-commercial intent, and previous permission from Burning Man, are exempted. All others will be asked to comply.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:10 am

The staff members concluded that after
analyzing the decision they felt the problem is that our participants do
not understand our media selection process. If you fall into this
category and want to learn more then please visit
<http://www.burningman.com/press/>.

Help me here Chai Guy....

Might I suggest that this is the most lame display of side-stepping an issue by the BM Project that I've seen to date?

Larry(TM), I KNOW you lurk here on occasion so... did you put the stamp on the above statement? I mean, seriously. WTF?

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:09 pm

If it were possible to get straignt answers, I would want to explore the reasons for even allowing someone from a "couch potato" network to shoot such a documentary.

It is either money, or diplomacy as far as I can tell. I say this because Discovery Times seems to be a producer of more informational than artistic documentaries. I didn't see the piece as I don't subscribe and I wasn't about to pay the subscription fee to DT just to see this piece. I *DO* however have access to some of their documentaries on the "on demand" feature of my cable service and the ones I have watched have been informational and so that is where this conclusion comes from. The material I have seen from them is informational so I am jumping to the conclusion that this piece was too.

Now, why would it be important to allow couch potatoes to see Burning Man? One could say it is about "bringing burning man to the real world" and I would buy that if the piece were more artistic. If it is informational, it is PR. Kind of a "hey look, we really aren't bad people, we're nice and we are an artistic community, please don't think bad thoughts about us, we will even let someone in and make a documentary so you can see".

If that's the case, do we really need to do that? Has the org considered the intangible costs in doing that? What I mean is that when someone produces something for burning man, be it their camp, their playa art installation, their costumes, etc. there is this certain feeling that their gift of art and interaction is returned with the gift of art and interaction with others. The person interacting with or admiring a piece of art can in turn be admired and interacted with and both are parts of the whole art. The couch potato at home watching on DT can be neither interacted with nor admired. They are a pure consumer of the art. In exchange for that couch potato having access to that art, someone (the cable company being at the top of this chain) is making money on it. Did these people go to burning man knowing very clearly that their efforts were going to be exploited by Comcast Cable (the strip mining)? Now that people DO know that this is going to happen, what is going to be their response in the future? Are some going to choose not to go as they don't want their art used to make money for someone else? Are other people going to show up just for a chance to be on TV?

So now we come back to the beginning and the original question: why was it done? If it was for PR, I say the event doesn't need it but I am not privy to the PR problems the org might or might not be having. If was for money, then just fucking say so.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:31 pm

Spectabillis:

Maybe they should put something in the section artist read in addition to the section the press is supposed to read along the lines of:

It is possible that Burning Man will allow the use of your art in commercial productions. 10 percent of the proceeds will be returned to Burning Man.

Forgive me if there is already something in there. If there is I must have missed it. For an artist to complain that their art is being exploited and a response along the lines of "if you would read a section of the website that has nothing to do with the section you are supposed to read, you would know this already" seems unreasonable. If you put something like the above in the documents that artists, theme camps, etc. are supposed to read .. maybe put it in the survival guide or on the ticket even ... then expections should be reasonably set going in and there would be no surprises.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:52 pm

i have seen art sites go through HUGE rounds of discussions and debates around copyrights, permissions of use, licensing...etc. i imagine the org will have to do so if enough people complain, or one-single-lawsuit is filed that pulls them into the fray. i dont see them doing anything pro-active about it until it hits some sort of 'tipping point' (drink!) since there is just too much disconnect already over the whole discovery channel piece.

that would include going over the website and rewriting parts with relevant links to disseminate all the info.

from - http://www.burningman.com/press/pressRandR.html

If any participant asks you to stop filming, you must stop immediately. If you continue to photograph or film, you face the possibility of being escorted from the event.
...
The copyright of any unique design, written work, artwork or performance is owned by the person or group of people who created it. You must ask permission before filming or photographing such artwork and performances and obtain signed model/property license(s) or release(s) from all appropriate parties. You may not make any use of images of such designs, artworks or performances without obtain a release or license from the creator(s).
...
You must ask for permission before photographing or filming any individual participant who might be recognizable. Crowd shots are exempt except when the artist, performer, and majority of participants request no cameras or filming. If you are planning to show the imagery to anyone other than your friends and family, you must obtain a written release from anyone you photograph, film or otherwise record.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:08 pm

I am partly of the mind that thinks a good bit of it is just agitation for agitation's sake ... tempest in a teapot. On the other hand, something like those two sentances could be placed someplace up front where people can see them or should have seen them, and to me it takes the wind out of the entire argument. If someone bitches about DT, you say "read your ticket" or "read your survival guide" and the discussion at that point is pretty much dead. The "you knew or should have known before you set foot at the entrance" rule then applies.

I can see where an artist that maybe is barely making a living produces something cool, it gets on DT, other people including BM make a few bucks on it, and the starving artist gets nothing and might be a little bitter about it if they weren't aware that the art could be used commercially.

At least in a coffee table book or something featuring a shot of your piece, you are likely to get full credit right there on the same page.

I personally don't have a problem with the money part, I am more against couch potatoes having the opportunity to see the event without getting off their ass and wallets and actually participating in it.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:42 pm

Hello

Burning man tv watcher here.
I haven't seen discovery or malcolm yet.

But years ago I did see a short clip of pyrotechnic robots in the dark and art cars silently cruising around at 3 am on the tv! What the fuck was that? No credits. No name. No explanation. No location.
Later they ran a show with more art cars and no explanation. But at the end there was a credit to burning man. Was that it? That was how I first heard about burning man. Much later, I found the phone no and got mailers which didn't really answer any important questions. Is this just another group of granola junkies and refugees from Marin County and the rainbow gathering? The burning man overlords finally put me in touch with an original attendee and he told me many tales including the driveby shooting gallery. We also talked about a foray he made to a fun shoot where he got to fire anti-aircraft guns and other fun stuff.
Now I get it! It's the rainbow people with military capability. I'm home.

It took me more than ten years to get here. For years I bought tickets and didn't get to go. There were many reasons, but when you live far away, anything can interfere. Many of the things I originally wanted to go for are gone, and I really regret that. But I made it this year, by some miracle. For years I made plans and participated in spirit at least.
Some told me burning man would blow my mind.
I find it intensely relaxing.
Maybe that says something about my life.

I went to burning man because there was a thirty second clip on tv.
No credits.

Niacin · Post by **Niacin** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:21 pm

geekster wrote:If it were possible to get straignt answers, I would want to explore the reasons for even allowing someone from a "couch potato" network to shoot such a documentary.

It is either money, or diplomacy as far as I can tell. I say this because Discovery Times seems to be a producer of more informational than artistic documentaries. I didn't see the piece as I don't subscribe and I wasn't about to pay the subscription fee to DT just to see this piece. I *DO* however have access to some of their documentaries on the "on demand" feature of my cable service and the ones I have watched have been informational and so that is where this conclusion comes from. The material I have seen from them is informational so I am jumping to the conclusion that this piece was too.

Now, why would it be important to allow couch potatoes to see Burning Man? One could say it is about "bringing burning man to the real world" and I would buy that if the piece were more artistic. If it is informational, it is PR. Kind of a "hey look, we really aren't bad people, we're nice and we are an artistic community, please don't think bad thoughts about us, we will even let someone in and make a documentary so you can see".

If that's the case, do we really need to do that? Has the org considered the intangible costs in doing that? What I mean is that when someone produces something for burning man, be it their camp, their playa art installation, their costumes, etc. there is this certain feeling that their gift of art and interaction is returned with the gift of art and interaction with others. The person interacting with or admiring a piece of art can in turn be admired and interacted with and both are parts of the whole art. The couch potato at home watching on DT can be neither interacted with nor admired. They are a pure consumer of the art. In exchange for that couch potato having access to that art, someone (the cable company being at the top of this chain) is making money on it. Did these people go to burning man knowing very clearly that their efforts were going to be exploited by Comcast Cable (the strip mining)? Now that people DO know that this is going to happen, what is going to be their response in the future? Are some going to choose not to go as they don't want their art used to make money for someone else? Are other people going to show up just for a chance to be on TV?

So now we come back to the beginning and the original question: why was it done? If it was for PR, I say the event doesn't need it but I am not privy to the PR problems the org might or might not be having. If was for money, then just fucking say so.

Perhaps the Org could put a new section in the AfterBurn, call it "Media Relations"; and have somebody In The Know write out who/what filmed at the Burn, and why the Org agreed to let them instead of just saying "uh, y'all don't understand something we didn't really make clear" in legalese.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:23 pm

I first heard about Burning Man on a Bay Area TV news broadcast in the 1990's. I (honestly) thought it was some radical feminist gathering.

Post by **actiongrl** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:44 am

I still feel what we said was true. There seems to be a lack of understanding about HOW we choose who gets to attend and what processes of acculturation we put them through.

The newsletter has a piece that goes into even greater detail about our media selection process...keep your eyes out for that this summer.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:54 am

actiongrl wrote:I still feel what we said was true. There seems to be a lack of understanding about HOW we choose who gets to attend and what processes of acculturation we put them through.

The newsletter has a piece that goes into even greater detail about our media selection process...keep your eyes out for that this summer.

Yeah, this summer. Let me guess, we'll see it in late July / early August so anyone with objections or questions to the process won't have a chance to effect change prior to this year's event? And I'm also wondering if the timing is so late because we're going to see another media mess like the Discovery Times piece this year? Who's going to be the group paying to film this time?

I'll wait for an answer...but I think I already know the answer. It should read something like this: We're volunteers, it takes time to put this together, yada, yada. We've heard that before too.

- Jaded and Highly Skeptical

(If it's controversial divert, delay, deny is a strategy that works for avoiding the messiness of admitting botched policies and procedures) (/soapbox)

Post by **actiongrl** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:52 am

Um, no, it's merely an explanation of how we assess and register media.

You'll see media at the event this year, yes. We allow the media, we appreciate and facilitate the media's presence.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:05 pm

We allow the media, we appreciate and facilitate the media's presence

.

I realize that, just wondering why. I mean, there are lots of events where it isn't like they ban the media or anything but they don't exactly cater to them either. I can think of lots of reasons, many good many bad. For example, it is easier to manage what goes out if you work with them rather than ignore them. If they sneak in and then distribute their content, then you might not have a lot of control over what is distributed. Then again at the other extreme, you could just copyright the entire event. Everything inside the gate is copyrighted and just say no. It's a tough problem and a balance must be struck somewhere, I suppose.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:23 pm

actiongrl wrote:Um, no, it's merely an explanation of how we assess and register media.

yeah, the selection process is not anywhere in the media pages. the whole 'protection of the artists works' is a somewhat separate issue, although slightly related.

i dont know why there was a meeting of' "non media Department staff," but that does not look so good when they still seem to get it wrong.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:48 am

bah... nevermind.

its much easier to change my defunct nevermind. in fact, just too cranky about it all right now. drama on an empty stage with no script, and the crowd is faceless without applause, not even laughter.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:36 am

geekster wrote:
We allow the media, we appreciate and facilitate the media's presence
.

I realize that, just wondering why. I mean, there are lots of events where it isn't like they ban the media or anything but they don't exactly cater to them either. I can think of lots of reasons, many good many bad. For example, it is easier to manage what goes out if you work with them rather than ignore them. If they sneak in and then distribute their content, then you might not have a lot of control over what is distributed. Then again at the other extreme, you could just copyright the entire event. Everything inside the gate is copyrighted and just say no. It's a tough problem and a balance must be struck somewhere, I suppose.

You can't do the latter.

The LLC is actually lucky to have as much control as it does have now. Forgive my ignorance but if you are in a public place, anyone can take your picture or video without permission and they can do whatever they want with it. People bitch about Discovery getting permission (and probably at least tacit permission from those they interviewed) but not about someone here photographing people and posting the images here with zero permission. Physician, heal thyself.

Regarding complaints: Burning Man is not a democracy. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's their party and we're invited. Realizing that made me a lot happier because I found out what I *could* do to effect change and stopped banging my head against a wall.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:26 pm

Forgive my ignorance but if you are in a public place

*shrug* depends in what the definition of public is I suppose. Anyhow, the ticket clearly says your image can be used without compensation or permission, just doesn't cover the project you spent a few grand on. A slight change of the wording would cover that.

From "Your image may be captured without consent ... " to "Images of you and/or your art may be captured without consent ..." and that would take care of it.

Niacin · Post by **Niacin** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:32 pm

HughMungus wrote:
You can't do the latter.

The LLC is actually lucky to have as much control as it does have now. Forgive my ignorance but if you are in a public place, anyone can take your picture or video without permission and they can do whatever they want with it. People bitch about Discovery getting permission (and probably at least tacit permission from those they interviewed) but not about someone here photographing people and posting the images here with zero permission. Physician, heal thyself.

Regarding complaints: Burning Man is not a democracy. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's their party and we're invited. Realizing that made me a lot happier because I found out what I *could* do to effect change and stopped banging my head against a wall.

My point/issue wasn't that DT was allowed to film there, that's Larry & Co's call as you said. My point was to question if coming BM documentaries were going to be filmed in that 'gonzo' style of journalism; and if LarryCo's vision for BM's to come goes in this direction; towards the new participants that would be attracted by naked skinny dipping in the desert and hand massages. I feel that clarification of that point would be a key factor in my (and I hope, many) veteran's opinion of the future of the event, and my role in the event in years to come. Geekster's points about art come to that bit as well.

Oh, and a cheap shot at the eggs; 'cause the egg bit deserves cheap shots. Anybody who disagrees can suck eggs.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:38 pm

Niacin wrote:
HughMungus wrote:
You can't do the latter.

The LLC is actually lucky to have as much control as it does have now. Forgive my ignorance but if you are in a public place, anyone can take your picture or video without permission and they can do whatever they want with it. People bitch about Discovery getting permission (and probably at least tacit permission from those they interviewed) but not about someone here photographing people and posting the images here with zero permission. Physician, heal thyself.

Regarding complaints: Burning Man is not a democracy. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's their party and we're invited. Realizing that made me a lot happier because I found out what I *could* do to effect change and stopped banging my head against a wall.
My point/issue wasn't that DT was allowed to film there, that's Larry & Co's call as you said. My point was to question if coming BM documentaries were going to be filmed in that 'gonzo' style of journalism; and if LarryCo's vision for BM's to come goes in this direction; towards the new participants that would be attracted by naked skinny dipping in the desert and hand massages. I feel that clarification of that point would be a key factor in my (and I hope, many) veteran's opinion of the future of the event, and my role in the event in years to come. Geekster's points about art come to that bit as well.

Ah. In that case, I agree that the Discovery piece on Burning Man was just "OK". The thing is, I don't think it was about Burning Man as much as it was about the journalist's experience at Burning Man. The 1998 piece that TLC did on Burning Man was much, much better simply because it was about Burning Man, not some journalist's fake attempt to "understand Burning Man" (which I don't think he was really trying to do).

To answer your question, the LLC probably saw the piece, also thought it was just "OK" and approved it because at the least it wasn't *too* mis-informational.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:02 pm

HughMungus wrote: ...not some journalist's fake attempt to "understand Burning Man" (which I don't think he was really trying to do).

i think he got a few things dead on target.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:01 pm

I still feel what we said was true. There seems to be a lack of understanding about HOW we choose who gets to attend and what processes of acculturation we put them through.

I don't think the question is so much "HOW" Andi, but "WHY?".

Unfortunately there seems little regard for the fact that the Discovery piece was the most poorly written, horribly edited, and atrociously produced piece of crap ever televised about the event. It's sad that the Malcolm in the Middle spoof actually came closer to a legitimate portrayal of BRC than Charlie's so called "documentary".

But as Andi will so quickly point out "We're not the arbiters of taste", and "We can only make sure that they follow their contractual obligations with regards to filming". Which kind of begs the question, why let Television come in and film at all?

To sell tickets perhaps? Let them create 1/2 hour infomercials on the event? I don't know. To spread the "Gospel" of Burning Man, maybe?

At any rate you can download and listen to the interview that DaBomb and I recently had with Andi Grace on the event and the Media here:

http://nospectators.com/burncasts/Burncast_1.m4a

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:12 am

Perhaps burning man should ask for final cut, as long as that power is used sparingly.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:28 am

spectabillis wrote:
HughMungus wrote: ...not some journalist's fake attempt to "understand Burning Man" (which I don't think he was really trying to do).
i think he got a few things dead on target.

My point is that he wasn't really trying to understand Burning Man. He was making a show of "trying" to understand Burning Man.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:25 am

Which kind of begs the question, why let Television come in and film at all?

To sell tickets perhaps? Let them create 1/2 hour infomercials on the event? I don't know. To spread the "Gospel" of Burning Man, maybe?

Yeah, exactly. I was thinking that this would be a good catalyst to get people thinking and exploring exactly why the policies are what they are. Were they developed in a different time when the event was different, attitudes toward it were different, etc? Do those policies still need to be what they are today? Is there some deep seated feeling at the org that the event needs to be defened or its existance justified or external validation sought or something? The key for me would be to put into one sentance exactly why large corporate media are permitted to produce content at burning man. I think it would be a good thought exercise if nothing else.

Afterburn Feedback 2k5 "our participants do not underst

Afterburn Feedback 2k5 "our participants do not underst

Thirty Seconds. No credits.