> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > Larry Colen
> I don't like the restrictions, I don't agree with them, but I > understand why they have them. I find it interesting that several of > the people in this discussion are arguing their point and have never > been to burning man, any of the burner community events, whether people have been there or not is completely irrelevant. > or quite > likely even read the rules in question. Then again, I doubt that > ignorance of a subject does much to deter any member of this list from > pontificating at great length on it. > Gee, Larry, if people don't agree with you they're ponitificating at great length are they? > I've seen this wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth a couple of > times, tried to find the specific restrictions, and couldn't. I asked > my friend who borrowed my van to go to burning man if he saw them, and > he said he didn't see anything different than previous years. So, > before you protest too vehemently that the rules this year are so much > unreasonably stricter than last year, perhaps someone could point out > the specific language that they object to. > there's a link to an excerpt from the BM blog them in the first post on this subject: <http://blog.burningman.com/2011/01/digital-rights/updated-terms-and-conditi ons-for-2011/> > > If someone wants to behave in a way that they don't want publicised, > they > > should do it in private, not in public > > What makes you think that burning man is public? It's a very, very > large private party. it's held on publicly-owned land and tickets are sold to the public. If they want it to be private they should hold it on private land and have people there by invitation only. B > On Sep 4, 2011, at 2:50 AM, Bob W wrote: > > >> How many people refuse to go see > >> a play, or a movie because they aren't allowed to video tape it? > How > >> many people refuse to go to a concert because they aren't allowed to > >> take photos? > > > > the restrictions at BM are not the same as those at a theatre or > cinema. At > > a theatre or cinema there is a blanket ban on photography from the > audience, > > And people go to those events anyways. > > > and a very clear distinction between audience and performers. As I > > understand it, at BM there is no distinction between audience and > > That's the theory, but there are an awful lot of obnoxious lookieeloos > that go there just to get drunk and ogle. > > > performers, and photography is not banned as such; rather, the > organisers > > impose a condition (model releases) that is impossible to comply > with, and > > claim rights to any photographs that are taken. This is very > different from > > the situation with theatre and cinema. > > I wasn't able to find the model release clause in the rules, perhaps > you can point it out. > > > > > The question that always comes to my mind in cases like this is, why > pick on > > photography? Do they also lay claim to writing about the event, or > sketches > > that someone could make? No they don't, so what is different about > > photography? IF I were to go there, write and then publish a piece > > accompanied by a recognisable sketch and naming a supreme court judge > > "wearing nothing but boots, goggles and a dust mask, dancing to rave > music > > dressed in a fluorescent french maid's costume", how would that be > different > > from photographing the same thing? > > The length of time that it would take you to draw it. > > > > >> There is also the fact that a lot of people go to the Playa to let > >> loose, and do the things that they can't get away with in what they > >> call the default world. People who would have bad things happen to > them > >> if pictures of them doing some of those things got seen by the wrong > >> people. > > > > If someone wants to behave in a way that they don't want publicised, > they > > should do it in private, not in public > > What makes you think that burning man is public? It's a very, very > large private party. > > Here is a case in point on that subject. There are no nudity taboos at > burning man. This is a good thing on many levels, not the least of > which is that it makes it a lot easier to wash up at your camp. As > such, a lot of people happen to wander around their camp naked, > especially when they've first gotten up, are taking a sponge bath etc. > Now lets say that Suzy Q. Public teaches third grade in Crotchcricket > Arkansas, which is not the most liberal city in the US. Suzy goes to > burning man each year as a chance to relax, party with her friends, and > blow off a little steam. By burning man standards, she's a little > uptight and is never nude in public, but she does go around topless in > her camp, and on the critical tits ride. Nothing that you couldn't do > on a lot of beaches in Europe. Or for that matter, Santa Cruz. > However, if photos of her topless got back to the people in her home > town, she'd probably lose her job over them. She's the sort of person > those rules would protect. > > Unlike my girlfriend, I haven't spent hours sitting around the kitchen > table talking with Larry Harvey about his motivations. Nor am I > employed by burningman LLC, like my nephew. However, I've known a lot > of people in the community for over 15 years, I've been to the playa, > and I've been to a lot of burner parties over the years. > > I don't think that the rules are quite as restrictive as people are > making them out to be. And, if they were, I don't think that for the > most part they are being enforced to the full extent. I think that they > would say those things to allow people to still take photos, but to > give BMLLC them legal recourse to remove offending photos from public > display. I think that the primary motivation for a lot of those rules > is complaints from the people at burning man. There are enough people > who are obnoxious enough with their cameras to make enough people > complain that people with cameras are considered a problem. It's very > tough to tell, ahead of time, a member of the PDML who is only using > their photographic skills for the betterment of humanity, from some > scruffy perv who is going to go around sticking his camera in the > business of every pretty girl he sees. The easiest solution to this > problem would be to just say "no photography", but I think that they > are trying to do what they can to allow people to still take photos, > and still preserve the reasons that a lot of people go to burning man. > > What it boils down to is that a few people ruin it for the rest. That > is why they no longer allow firearms at burning man. Nor do they allow > most people to drive other than to arrive, or to leave. If you think > the rules on photography are strict, you should see the rules for the > Department of Mutant Vehicles. > > I think that Harvey is a bit of a megalomaniac, and there are a lot of > things I disagree with the way that he runs things. However, Burning > Man is his party, and he is free to run it however he wants. If > someone else wants to throw a week long party for 50,000 half naked > hippies, but where photography is allowed, they are most welcome to > host their own event. > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
