Comments on: 3 Count: Burned, Man http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/08/14/3-count-burned-man/ Content Theft, Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:59:41 +0000 hourly 1 By: Jonathan Bailey http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/08/14/3-count-burned-man/comment-page-1/#comment-127641 Jonathan Bailey Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:49:00 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=4364#comment-127641 Though I better understand the reasoning behind why Burning Man does what it does after reading this reply, I still have to disagree with their approach and here's why: 1) The concerns they expressed in the post could be better handled through other areas of the law. Privacy issues should be handled via privacy law, If you take a photo of someone and use it for a commercial purpose, you need a model release. Without that, you have a lawsuit on your hands. 2) It's too vague. There's no clear indication of what is permitted. This give BMO the right to change their mind at any time for any reason on these issues. The simpler solution and the more ethical one would be to ban photography altogether or ban it for certain uses (pornography, commercial, etc.) As it sits right now, if I went, I would have no idea what images I could put on my site without fear of a takedown. Right now what they are trying to do, fundamentally, is protect participant's privacy by using a sneaky rights grab in the fine print of the ticket TOS to let them use a copyright law to order removal of images. That's just a bad combination all around. I agree with what they are trying to do but strongly disagree with their approach still... Though I better understand the reasoning behind why Burning Man does what it does after reading this reply, I still have to disagree with their approach and here's why:

1) The concerns they expressed in the post could be better handled through other areas of the law. Privacy issues should be handled via privacy law, If you take a photo of someone and use it for a commercial purpose, you need a model release. Without that, you have a lawsuit on your hands.
2) It's too vague. There's no clear indication of what is permitted. This give BMO the right to change their mind at any time for any reason on these issues.

The simpler solution and the more ethical one would be to ban photography altogether or ban it for certain uses (pornography, commercial, etc.) As it sits right now, if I went, I would have no idea what images I could put on my site without fear of a takedown.

Right now what they are trying to do, fundamentally, is protect participant's privacy by using a sneaky rights grab in the fine print of the ticket TOS to let them use a copyright law to order removal of images. That's just a bad combination all around.

I agree with what they are trying to do but strongly disagree with their approach still…

]]> By: Jonathan Bailey http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/08/14/3-count-burned-man/comment-page-1/#comment-132083 Jonathan Bailey Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:49:00 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=4364#comment-132083 Though I better understand the reasoning behind why Burning Man does what it does after reading this reply, I still have to disagree with their approach and here's why: 1) The concerns they expressed in the post could be better handled through other areas of the law. Privacy issues should be handled via privacy law, If you take a photo of someone and use it for a commercial purpose, you need a model release. Without that, you have a lawsuit on your hands. 2) It's too vague. There's no clear indication of what is permitted. This give BMO the right to change their mind at any time for any reason on these issues. The simpler solution and the more ethical one would be to ban photography altogether or ban it for certain uses (pornography, commercial, etc.) As it sits right now, if I went, I would have no idea what images I could put on my site without fear of a takedown. Right now what they are trying to do, fundamentally, is protect participant's privacy by using a sneaky rights grab in the fine print of the ticket TOS to let them use a copyright law to order removal of images. That's just a bad combination all around. I agree with what they are trying to do but strongly disagree with their approach still... Though I better understand the reasoning behind why Burning Man does what it does after reading this reply, I still have to disagree with their approach and here’s why:

1) The concerns they expressed in the post could be better handled through other areas of the law. Privacy issues should be handled via privacy law, If you take a photo of someone and use it for a commercial purpose, you need a model release. Without that, you have a lawsuit on your hands.
2) It’s too vague. There’s no clear indication of what is permitted. This give BMO the right to change their mind at any time for any reason on these issues.

The simpler solution and the more ethical one would be to ban photography altogether or ban it for certain uses (pornography, commercial, etc.) As it sits right now, if I went, I would have no idea what images I could put on my site without fear of a takedown.

Right now what they are trying to do, fundamentally, is protect participant’s privacy by using a sneaky rights grab in the fine print of the ticket TOS to let them use a copyright law to order removal of images. That’s just a bad combination all around.

I agree with what they are trying to do but strongly disagree with their approach still…

]]> By: Debora Weber-Wulff http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/08/14/3-count-burned-man/comment-page-1/#comment-132082 Debora Weber-Wulff Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:18:00 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=4364#comment-132082 Burning Man has published a very detailed blog entry on why they do this. It does rather make sense: <a href="http://blog.burningman.com/?p=4599" rel="nofollow">http://blog.burningman.com/?p=4599</a> Burning Man has published a very detailed blog entry on why they do this. It does rather make sense: http://blog.burningman.com/?p=4599

]]> By: Debora Weber-Wulff http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/08/14/3-count-burned-man/comment-page-1/#comment-127624 Debora Weber-Wulff Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:18:52 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=4364#comment-127624 Burning Man has published a very detailed blog entry on why they do this. It does rather make sense: <a href="http://blog.burningman.com/?p=4599" rel="nofollow">http://blog.burningman.com/?p=4599</a> Burning Man has published a very detailed blog entry on why they do this. It does rather make sense: http://blog.burningman.com/?p=4599

]]>