Business 2.0 Article

DaBomb · Post by **DaBomb** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:43 pm

gyre wrote:Who is Jerri Manthey?
What are you talking about?

Oh, sorry.

Jerri Manthey is a fire performer burner that formally performed with the Mutaytor. She also finished eighth-place on SURVIVOR: THE AUSTRALIAN OUTBACK.

In September, 2001, Jerri appeared on the cover of Playboy and was the highest-selling issue of the year. In her spread, she wore a necklace with the Burning Man logo.

[/img]

Plastic G'zus · Post by **Plastic G'zus** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:34 pm

I have to say, this years theme disturbs me. I mean, how the hell do I make a donkey costume?

DaBomb · Post by **DaBomb** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:36 pm

here's an idea:

Plastic G'zus · Post by **Plastic G'zus** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:41 pm

As for Jerri, how can you complain about that? That's one of my favorite issuues and I never even noticed the Man around her neck. I'm gonna have to dig that one out of the stack now. (no, I don't read them. I just look at the pictures.)

Post by **actiongrl** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:57 am

There is absolutely nothing legally enforceable about Jerri Manthey wearing a Burning Man necklace on the cover of Playboy magazine, full stop.

flipper · Post by **flipper** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:16 am

[quote="LeChatNoir"]Da Bomb,

I've got to respectfully disagree with you on this one. That google logo is the one that they put up on the website sometimes on the first day of the event, right?

So really isnâ€™t it google promoting Burning Man and not the other way around in this particular case? [/quote]

The Google with a man logo comes from 1998-99, when they were burners in or just out of college, and the LLC was an infant. And Google wasn't running ads yet, IIRC.

I don't think it has been used since, except to document their internal history (also on pages with no ads). http://www.google.com/holidaylogos99.html
and I think they consider it "retired"
http://www.google.com/stickers.html

DaBomb · Post by **DaBomb** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:53 am

flipper wrote:The Google with a man logo comes from 1998-99, when they were burners in or just out of college, and the LLC was an infant.

The invited guests of BMorg, those green technologies in the Google Pavillion, are also start ups.

If these start-ups disallowed from using their "face" or their logo or even to market themselves in any way, shape or form, how the hell are participants supposed to know who they are? Why would these start-ups even want to participate then? What's in it for them?

And...guys...come on...you're all kerfuffled with Jerri Manthey's beauty, but it is product placement in Playboy magazine. Wake up!

MikeVDS · Post by **MikeVDS** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:32 am

Why would these start-ups even want to participate then? What's in it for them?

That's not an argument. You could say that about any of us. What's in it for me?

DaBomb · Post by **DaBomb** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:35 am

MikeVDS wrote:
Why would these start-ups even want to participate then? What's in it for them?
That's not an argument. You could say that about any of us. What's in it for me?

You're not invited to the party and asked to pay full price for your ticket and asked to put a bag on your face or otherwise obscure your identity.

Post by **actiongrl** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:58 am

It isn't "product placement". It's a girl named Jerri, a burner, wearing one of her own necklaces in a publicly-reproduced photograph, and again, it's not legally enforceable as any kind of violation. So who are you mad at? Jerri, for displaying her burner affiliation in such a public way, or us, for not "doing" anything about a cultural reference like this?

DaBomb · Post by **DaBomb** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:11 pm

My issue is that you folks are selective in your enforcement of copyright infringement.

Who owns the mark? I'm really confused!

I just heard a podcast with Heather Gallagher aka "CameraGirl" in which she draws parallels between Burning Man and open source models, as well as the event, Burners Without Borders, the Green Man theme, the BMorg, the Community (drink!) and more. Cite: http://www.kruufm.com/node/1004

I dunno what to think about that. I'm a non-tech gal with a non-tech profession (that is still running on the 1.0 business model) so I'm just trying to get a handle on these concepts. But, it seems to me that if the parallels that CameraGirl makes are logical and true, than it's also true that John Law was right: "Burning Man belongs to everyone." Cite: http://johnlawspeaks.wordpress.com/2007 ... -everyone/

MikeVDS · Post by **MikeVDS** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:27 pm

You're not invited to the party and asked to pay full price for your ticket and asked to put a bag on your face or otherwise obscure your identity.

Nor are any of the individuals coming. I'm not allowed to put of signs for my business either, yet i still wish to addend. Funny. Last I checked, I'm invited, I have to buy a ticket and i cannot display brand names publicly or sell products.

MikeVDS · Post by **MikeVDS** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:34 pm

My issue is that you folks are selective in your enforcement of copyright infringement.

First, I really doubt the playboy is enforceable. Even if it was, the symbol is not really "The Man" symbol and looks closer to many other representations people have made of humans over the years.

Second, people should be selective about enforcement. There is a huge difference between someone subtly expressing themselves in a commercial publication and a commercial publication using someone else's copyrighted material to increase their profit.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:08 pm

actiongrl wrote: So who are you mad at?

um, that she didn't visit my tent that year, like her eyes promised she would.

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:56 pm

...I should have told her where your tent was then...

...and maybe I should see if I could get a detail to BLM as a permit monitor for the event, could be a fun time...

MozyBonz · Post by **MozyBonz** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:36 pm

joel the ornery wrote:
actiongrl wrote: So who are you mad at?
um, that she didn't visit my tent that year, like her eyes promised she would.

Hashanah...Oh manâ€¦ you mean she wasnâ€™t looking at me?

LeChatNoir · Post by **LeChatNoir** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:24 pm

DaBomb wrote:You're not invited to the party and asked to pay full price for your ticket and asked to put a bag on your face or otherwise obscure your identity.

Yes I am. I've gotta go with Mike on this one. My project this year has everything to do with the skills I use to make a living, but you will not find a link to my website on the eplaya or the real playa.

And I think the Playboy thing is such a vague reference to Bm that you'd have to be "on the bus" to even get it.

Actiongrl,

On the topic of the necklace and hypothetically speaking (all other current issues aside), would it be an idea to place the Burning Man symbol(s) under a creative commons license? It seems to work well for music and publications?

Would that even work and is it something you can speculate on?

Archantael · Post by **Archantael** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:54 pm

Going off on a tangent, I find it very interesting that Larry Harvey addresses parts of the issues being discussed both here and over on Tribe through an ActionGrl post (or Andie as she's known over there)...but the eplaya, the offical BBS of Burning Man gets ignored. It sure shows how much the senior staff cares about what's happening in their own back yard so to speak...don't take my word for it, go look for yourself. Come on AG, you could have at least crossposted something and gave us all the benefit of the hatted one's opinion on the matter. Or is the eplaya just not that important anymore when you have a confirmed audience of 15,000+ out there?

Anyway here's the link..the thread is titled:
"unresponsive, non-transparent, and fundamentally undemocratic" (how appropriate), look for Andie's post timestamped at 3:14 pm today.

http://bm.tribe.net/thread/e938a97b-d44 ... a1db28d633

LeChatNoir · Post by **LeChatNoir** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:22 pm

LeChatNoir wrote:
Actiongrl,

On the topic of the necklace and hypothetically speaking (all other current issues aside), would it be an idea to place the Burning Man symbol(s) under a creative commons license? It seems to work well for music and publications?

Would that even work and is it something you can speculate on?

Now that I think about it, it may well be under something like that already.

LeChatNoir · Post by **LeChatNoir** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:33 pm

Archantael wrote:Going off on a tangent, I find it very interesting that Larry Harvey addresses parts of the issues being discussed both here and over on Tribe through an ActionGrl post (or Andie as she's known over there)...but the eplaya, the offical BBS of Burning Man gets ignored. It sure shows how much the senior staff cares about what's happening in their own back yard so to speak...don't take my word for it, go look for yourself. Come on AG, you could have at least crossposted something and gave us all the benefit of the hatted one's opinion on the matter. Or is the eplaya just not that important anymore when you have a confirmed audience of 15,000+ out there?

Anyway here's the link..the thread is titled:
"unresponsive, non-transparent, and fundamentally undemocratic" (how appropriate), look for Andie's post timestamped at 3:14 pm today.

http://bm.tribe.net/thread/e938a97b-d44 ... a1db28d633

Thanks for the heads up. Dear Lord.. I'd not looked on tribe for a while. Only so much I can take of it.

I, for one, appreciate that Larry Harvey chimed in via Andie, even if only over there (ETA: but it would have been nice to see it here too). And on a side note, I found it interesting that he said that the finacials were the most visited part of the Afterburn reports. Man... I don't give a crap what Larry and Marian make. In fact I hope they all make enough to pay their bills and have a glass of wine at night. If paying them for a year's worth of work is what it takes for me to have a week worth planning my year around... great. That's the least of my worries.

I just don't want the event to turn into something I no longer feel good about going to... that's all.

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:51 pm

joel the ornery wrote:
actiongrl wrote: So who are you mad at?
um, that she didn't visit my tent that year, like her eyes promised she would.

...now there is a class action suit I would join!

DaBomb · Post by **DaBomb** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:48 am

Archantael wrote:Going off on a tangent, I find it very interesting that Larry Harvey addresses parts of the issues being discussed both here and over on Tribe through an ActionGrl post (or Andie as she's known over there)...

How do we know these are the words of the great and wonderful Larry? To quote the Business 2.0 article "the enigmatic sign above the door to her (Marian Goodell) conference room reads, "Larry Harvey does not exist."

MikeVDS wrote:There is a huge difference between someone subtly expressing themselves in a commercial publication and a commercial publication using someone else's copyrighted material to increase their profit.

The September 2001 in which Jerry Manthey appeared was the the highest-selling issue of the year. Thanks for backing me up.

DaBomb · Post by **DaBomb** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:51 am

====================================================================

BURNcast #050 - Chris Taylor of Business 2.0 Magazine
http://www.nospectators.com/index.php?page=burncast

====================================================================

Todayâ€™s episode is brought to you by Playazon.com http://www.playazon.com featuring journalist Chris Taylor aka as "Future Boy". Taylor wrote the controversial article "Burning Man Grows Up" thatâ€™s sparked heated debate and healthy discussion on-line at ePlaya and the Burning Man Tribe on Tribe.net. The article is featured in the July 2007 edition of Business 2.0 magazine and can be read in its entirety by visiting the Black Rock City Community Collective http://www.BlackRockCityCommunity.info. Recorded July 10, 2007

For more information about this episode, click on our show notes at http://www.BURNcast.net

Tell us what you think! Call the new BURNcast hot-line, courtesy of the Gizmo Project at 775-363-5861

MikeVDS · Post by **MikeVDS** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:04 am

The September 2001 in which Jerry Manthey appeared was the the highest-selling issue of the year.

And all thanks to burningman! Wow! How could I have missed that? Duhhh.

Archantael · Post by **Archantael** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:16 am

I've got a kind of crush on DaBomb of late for telling it like it is and making the LLC rather uncomfortable. Now comes the Burncast....and the pressure continues to build. It's nice to have some media power behind ya to get a message out. And DaBomb has it and she uses it perfectly....

When I made that post I have to admit I had a hidden agenda. The post was a slap at the LLC (directed towards AG who apparently does read this and has a voice inside the inner circle but doesn't seem to use it effectively) for neglecting this board while they go chase after the much larger audience on Tribe. With a little investment and some technology upgrades they could basically knock Tribe out as the defacto BM online community. But it's obvious they have their priorities all wrong. So...while this board languishes we get to go read LH's comments posted first on an outside site...that sucks.

In fact depending on how you look at it...it's just another misqueue or communications screwup that the ORG has made ..it's part of a much longer list of incidents going back before even the StopBM people made a feeble attempt to bring the LLC to heel...They have to get a media slap before they respond....the Borg2 incident would be another example of that.

Anyway enough of the personal rant / tangent. DaBomb raised another good point about AG posting on behalf of LH. There's no way to know who wrote that out. While I want to give AG the benefit of the doubt that it is LH's words...there's no way to know for sure. It looks like it's time to apply those critical thinking skills and question the source...and their case seems a little weak right now. Time to go screen some posts...and maybe expose some shadow socks!

MikeVDS · Post by **MikeVDS** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:56 am

I'm all for fighting "The Man" whether it's the BMLLC or someone else, but if you try to strengthen your case by focusing on non arguments, people are going to start to wonder why you are trying to get them to believe something so much that you're willing to start making up arguments. I understand the whole pavilion thing and can see how it can turn bad, but the playboy thing? It just doesn't work in the favor of the anti-pavilion crowd.

MozyBonz · Post by **MozyBonz** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:58 am

MikeVDS wrote: the playboy thing? It just doesn't work in the favor of the anti-pavilion crowd.

I would agree.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:01 am

i don't get the connection between the playboy and the pavillion.

will the pavillion have breasts?

of course, i have been called obtuse.

Burp! · Post by **Burp!** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:05 am

Just adding my thoughts to a long thread. I think this is the opening of the door we all have feared. They say no logos and marketing are to be done, but when someone says "Where do I get me one of those?" I really doubt there won't be sales pitch ready. Make no mistake there is an agenda here and that is what I find baffling.

One Nay vote here.

T.

MozyBonz · Post by **MozyBonz** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:10 am

My personal perception (Reality) is that everyone should take a breath and a step back on this.

Some times we get to close to things to see the big picture.

Really... it's just all Speculation...