OK
 
CULTURE : DRIVE : ENVIRONMENT : MEDIA : NEIGHBORHOODS : POWER : L.A.VISION :: [FAQ] .
LAVoice.org
. /user.php .
Santiveri
.
  Welcome, !   Feb 09, 2010 - 06:43 AM  
.
   Login to
COMMENT or POST
.




 


 Log in Problems?
 New User? Sign Up!
.
   SEARCH
.
Google
Web lavoice.org

.
   Main Menu
.
.
   Who's Online
.
There are 29 unlogged users and 0 registered users online.

You can log-in or register for a user account here.
.
   LAVoice Archives
.
CULTURE
DRIVE
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA
NEIGHBORHOODS
POWER
.
   Past Articles
.
Older articles
.
.
 
  Who Owns Burning Man? John Law Sues Ex-Partners
3670 Reads
 
 
This will probably be the explosive catalyst for inflammatory gossip among the old guard on the playa at Burning Man next Labor Day - as well as in numerous online venues, salons and pre-burn build sessions beforehand.

But to the vast unwashed - those of us who go to participate - it probably won't matter a damn:

John Law, a founding organizer who backed out in 1996 (the year it grew too damn big), sued Larry Harvey and Michael Mikel today in San Francisco (.PDF), charging that they've somehow misappropriated the Burning Man brand and identity that properly belongs to the people of the Burning Man community.

Law waxes passionate and eloquent about the lawsuit and the meaning of Burning Man on his blog, saying this ...
CULTURE
Burning Man belongs to everyone.
Burning Man is the sum of the efforts of the tens of thousands of people who have contributed to making Burning Man what it is.

The name Burning Man and all attendant trademarks, logos and trade dress do not belong to Larry Harvey alone or to Black Rock City LLC.

If they don’t belong to anyone, they belong to the public domain. If they are in the public domain, the event can still go on and the trademarks, logos and trade dress can still be used. But the event organizers don’t own those things and each and every one of the event participants are free to use these things as they want without permission or interference from the event organizers. There’s nothing to stop the party from being as big and wild as ever. ...

(insert interesting history of the partnership here)

Burning Man, since it’s inception has depended upon the gratis efforts of many. Since my leaving active organizing of the event in 1996, it has become a huge business generating more than 8 million dollars a year. Some people are paid quite well for their efforts. If the organizing core of the event believes, as they say quite clearly in their literature that the BM concept is a true movement, and has an opportunity to really make a difference in peoples lives and ideas around community, the arts, etc., then they shouldn’t have a problem releasing the protected trademarks Burning Man, Black Rock City, etc to the public domain where ANYONE can then BE Burning Man. Doing this will not impede their ability to manage and organize the event, sell tickets, pay themselves, and any artists, vendors and tradesmen as they choose using ticket sales receipts.

The only thing that would change is that NO ONE would be able to capitalize on “Burning Man” by licensing the name or selling it or using it as an advertising pitch. There is no other reason to retain these legal ownership titles other than to capitalize on their brand value at some later date.

I was defrauded by Larry and Michael’s actions. I hope they choose to do the right thing and give Burning Man to the people.

If they prove unwilling to do that, then I must insist that Larry and Michael honor their contract with me and honor the intent and letter of the law of our earlier agreements.
Should the organizers earn a living from producing the thing? Having seen first-hand the massive logistics that go into helping 40,000 people turn a sun-blasted slab of Nevada desert into home, hub, gallery and stage for a couple of weeks, i'd have to say yes.

Does Law have a point? Also yes, considering the central tenets of a culture now more than two decades old. Unless, of course, you see litigation as some weird form of performance art.

So, is a court of law - the very antithesis of Burning Man - the best place to settle this beef? Fuck no. Ownership of the brand itself helps assure that Coke, Cadillac, Phillips and every other trend-surfing multinational thinks twice before slapping images of Black Rock City fireworkers and BM logos on their products and trying to capitalize on the community's image and culture.

If you differ, let me know.

Footnotes:

Here's my coverage of the 2006 and 2005 gatherings.

This year's art theme for the festival is The Green Man - a declared theme is almost definitely antithetical to the intent of the festival, IMHO. But hey, it'll all be moot ashes when the Man burns 235 days from now.

(via BoingBoing)


Send this story to someone  
 
 
Posted by: Mack_Reed on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 04:37 PM  
 
Who Owns Burning Man? John Law Sues Ex-Partners | Log-in or register a new user account | Comments
  
Comments are statements made by the person that posted them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of the site editor.
.
   Advertisements
.

blog advertising is good for you

.
   Blogs Beyond
.
.
   RSS
.

Add to My Yahoo!
FeedBurner
.
.
. . .



You can syndicate our news by linking to the file backend.php

Feedback on the contents of LAvoice.org
should be submitted by clicking "comments" on the pertinent story.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | |

Creative Commons License
All words and images on LAvoice.org
are licensed under a Creative Commons License.
LAVoice.org was created at factoid labs

PUBLISHERS: Ryan Knoll and Scott Olin Schmidt (2007 - ); Mack Reed, 2002-2007

This web site was made with PostNuke, a web portal system written in PHP.
PostNuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.