Talk:Burning Man/Archive03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Links cont, proposed rewrite & Theme camps 2 Images of/at Burning Man 3 Category: Burning Man 4 Sources Collection 5 Archive 6 Letter to Bman's Media Team 7 NPOV complaint by 65.182.172.87 7.1 Is this still disputed?? 8 Dialogue w/ Burning Man Media Team 2 9 Archived Village pump discussion 9.1 Archived discussion: Burning Man, images, GFDL, and unusual image restrictions 9.2 Add new comments here 10 Burning Man: Beyond Black Rock 11 Reorder / Nudity Sex and Drugs 12 Nudity, sex And drugs -> Illicit Activities 13 clean up 14 citations tag 15 Listing Theme Camps

[edit] Links cont, proposed rewrite & Theme camps

don't miss conversation leading to this in Archive02

I think really what this article needs is to be rewritten with sourcing/proper wikipedia footnotes, at which time some of the current external links could be integrated into article as sources, thus necessitating a smaller external links section overall. Maybe we could actually get featured article status at that point, too. It would nice to have a fully FA-quality article in any case, regardless of whether it is eventually picked.

At this point my inclination is to leave the Links section as it currently stands, pending this future rewrite. I think that I could get to it eventually, when I finish my current projects. I do still think we need to police additions to the section to keep it from overwhelming the article itself.

Also, while we're brainstorming -- one thing the recent links controversy reminded me is that the treatment of theme camps on this article and in wikipedia in general is lacking. I think eventually this article should spawn a full fledged Theme camps article. Thoughts? Kit 04:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

What about starting a Theme Camp section within the article and then when there's enough for a stub, copy the text to a separate page, and then start a links section for theme camps. Even though there only needs to be a link to http://www.burningman.com/themecamps/ in order to get to all the camps' sites, I think it would still be of value to have links to individual camps from that page. Maybe even a paragraph each for reoccurring camps and popular camps from last year.

What kinds of sources and footnotes did you have mind? Are there any academic papers or articles in sociological journals about Burning Man?

MarXidad 02:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion for starting a theme camp article spawning off from Burning Man first as a subsection and eventually as a complete article, with a little link in this article saying (Main Article: see Theme camps). I would prefer that we link mostly to theme camps from within the article itself and minimize the links on the External links section. Ideally, it would be more than just a list of theme camps. Rather than listing theme camps, we should talk about what a theme camp does, give examples of services that some of the major camps run, talk about the planning, expenses, and fund raising that go into theme camps, and so on. While doing that we would certainly write about a number of specific camps but I'd like to avoid making a directory of theme camps out of an encyclopedia article.

As to sources there are a number of newspaper and journalistic articles we can link to, as well as the plethora of survival materials on the official website. There might be some links to personal sites or unofficial burning man pages too, where we couldn't find something else. Sources can be appropriate to the topic at hand -- for an article about chemistry we would want academic papers, but we don't need them here. Although I don't doubt that there are academic papers about Bman and I am sure we can link to those if they are online. Kit 04:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Not to be needlessly contrarian (I hope), but a case could be made for an independent theme-camp article, since many theme camps have an existence outside of Burning Man, that is, the same theme camp may appear at the big burn, a regional burn, and may exist as a cohesive community during the rest of the year. adamrice 19:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Other related pages Burner_(Burning_Man), Black Rock City, Black Rock City Ranger (should have their own section in 'health and safety'), Art Car (exists, further linked). Theme camp (singular or plural?) should definitely evolve into its own page. Seems fine to me to begin that process with a section on this page. The current Table of Contents really isn't so bad... I'd say dive in MarX, go for a theme camp section, Kit references?, I'm going to edit regional events a bit and try to find images for David_Best's temples.

∴ here…♠ 19:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should start Category:Burning Man to cover all of these related pages. Also, perhaps we should look into starting a wikipedia project to cover Burning Man related articles.

I already created Black Rock City, NV as a Redirect to this article pending creation of a full article. I suppose Black Rock City should be a redirect either to Black Rock City, NV or be a disambiguation page as there are other Black Rock-named towns in the country according to a search of the 'pedia.

I am definitely interested in writing the Theme camp section (singular is probably better) as I am going to be helping to run one at Burning Flipside next year and it seems like the research would probably turn up stuff useful to me. Of course I would be happy to collaborate with MarXidad on it. I will take a look at sources for Burning Man too.

I have a concern about the use of images of Burning Man and taken at Burning Man, but I will start a new section for the discussion of it. It seems like the Links controversy has died down for now, how long should we wait to archive the first, lengthy Links category on this page? Kit 20:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images of/at Burning Man

This official Bman page states that: "Commercial use of all imagery taken at Burning Man is forbidden without express permission. All professional photographers with intent to receive compensation for a Burning Man image (including editorial or gallery) must check in at Media Mecca. Pre- or post-event, photographers should register at www.burningman.com/press, contact the hotline, or write press (at) burningman (dot) com for permission."

We need to make sure that the creator of any images we use in Wikipedia has registered as a commercial user for the event where they took the photo, otherwise while we may or may not be violating the law we are certainly violating the rules of the event. We should, in my opinion, contact the creator of the picture now in use and make sure they obtained this permission. The same would go for any photos we add to this or other articles.

Oops that was by me. Kit 20:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I am yet to become well versed in the copyright issues here at wikipedia, nor am I overly familiar with BRC's policy. It does seem that this is an issue with BRC LLC, as they would have to approve this potentially commercial use. It's maybe worthwhile to contact press@burningman Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission requesting permission to use authorized photos in wikimedia projects. ∴ here…♠ 22:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think it makes sense to try and find new photos one of the editors owns the copyright on and ask about those, or should we try to obtain permission to keep using the existing pictures? I would think new photos would be easier but I also don't want to be accused of vanity for suggesting one of my own. :) I think it would be best if the pictures do not picture anything and it would probably be best to pick out the photos we want and ask permission to use them from BMorg as a group.

If new photos, we want one or more of the man (sculpture and burning) and ideally one of each of the Temples, esp. David Best's for his article but a picture of this year's temple would potentially be good for the article. Other incidental shots are OK but we should make sure that no person is pictured in them both for our purposes and to increase the chance that we will get permission to open license the shots.

I suppose it might also be good to ask BMorg to provide pictures if they don't want ours used.Kit 20:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I contact User:Ali-oops on their Talk page because it appears they took Image:neonman.jpg. It is quite possible that the event was not as restrictive about photos in 1999 even if this user did not have special media permission. I'll keep updating here as I find out more.

The Burning Man photo restriction does not apply here, as the restriction is a covenant between the person who took the pictures and Burning Man management. Wikipedia is not a party to that contract and thus it does not apply. I'm certain that BRC LLC would love to think that they can exercise complete control over all photographs taken at Burning Man, but the fact of the matter is that they do not own the copyrights to those photos, and the enforceability of the photo use restriction section of the Burning Man contract is highly dubious. I would definitely suggest NOT contacting BRC LLC regarding these photographs as that would seem to be implying that we are under the impression that they have any say over how we use photos that they do not hold the copyright to. It is my considered opinion that any photographs taken at Burning Man can be used on Wikipedia, provided the photographer releases them under a license which is acceptable to Wikipedia. Nohat 05:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

On principle, and the assumption that Bmorg is not evil, I think contact is warrented. I have no trouble ignoring rules when appropriate, but I just don't see the point here. I imagine they would be supportive, if anything? ∴ here…♠ 07:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, those restrictions were *not* in place when I took the above pic way back then. I certainly didn't sign anything waiving my rights to copyright of works or anything like that. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with on this one. The fact that BMorg now appear to be so restrictive on such matters is just annoying & certainly not in the spirit of things - Ali-oops^✍ 07:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think, personally, that trying to limit commercial use of images taken at the event is certainly in keeping with the 'no vendor' spirit of the event. The goal seems to be to prevent excessive commercial exploitation of the event and to keep Bman out of stock photography collections where it could be then incorporated into advertisements. I, for one, would cringe if there was some advertisement with the slogan "For everywhere you want to be, there's Mastercard." and a picture of the Gerlach general store and a Man going up in flames or something.

In any case, to respond to Nohat, I have already been in touch with Burning Man (see the last entry on this page). I would prefer that if any images from the event are used they either predate the photography restrictions or have been approved by the Bman media team. Even if the BMorg technically has no legal right to enforce this clause, I would prefer to see Wikipedia be a good online citizen by respecting this restriction and the group which imposed it. Kit 19:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Burning Man

I have created Category:Burning Man and I am going to write up some text for it. I added all the articles I knew of that should be added, but feel free to add any others you think belong -- please limit them to things actually specific to Burning Man though, not just attended by many Burners (so don't add it to the X-Day article for instance). I added it to David Best but was unsure whether I should add it to Art car. Thoughts? Other things that belong in the cat?

As per Wikipedia:Categorization, I removed Category:Religious festivals, Category:Cultural festivals, Category:Ticketed festivals from this article and made Category:Burning Man a subcategory of those three instead. The policy suggests this article should not be both in its category (Bman) and that category's parent categories. Kit 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Art Cars, no. I could be convinced otherwise on this one, but the article barely mentions burning man. I'd say the transportation section in the burning man article could include more about art cars at burning man.
• Green Tortoise, remove. The green tortoise is not a burning man organization. They happen to run two busses there once a year, but otherwise are focused on running their hostels and busses.

∴ here…♠ 21:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed Green Tortoise. We can use Category_talk:Burning Man for further discussion of what should or should not be included. I'd love your thoughts on the Pictures discussion above and my most recent thoughts in the second Links discussion, too. Thanks for jumping in. Kit 21:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

65.182.172.87 comments:

        Comment: The Green Tortoise runs the shuttle at Burning Man, which is
        the primary means by which participants reach the neary communities
        of Empire of Gerlach to resupply. Its buses arrive in such numbers that
        not only is the Green Tortoise one of the largest camps at Burning Man,
        but part of BRC would be hard to recognize without the GT's signiature
        shade structure. While the Tortoise has a life outside of Burning Man,
        the same might be said of almost every other group of participants.

        The link should stay in.

Just to clarify, 65.* and make sure we are on the same page, this is a discussion over whether Green Tortoise should be part of Category:Burning Man, not a discussion of the 'See Also' link to the Green Tortoise article in Burning Man. However, I am inclined to agree with you on this matter. I will put Green Tortoise back in Category:Burning Man. Please take any further discussion of this or other items in the category to Category talk:Burning Man or Talk:Green Tortoise as appropriate, as it is not really on topic for this page. Kit 21:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this categorization. The green tortoise's involvement in burning man is a miniscule part of it's operations. Furthermore, the impact the Green Tortoise has /on/ burning man is miniscule, a medium to small sized theme camp of somewhat ramdon assembly (bus riders need not even bring their own food!) I find this somewhat akin to putting the article for porta-potties in the burningman category. Should the Green Tortoise also be in a category for the Oregon County Fair? How about Alaska? Perhaps Yosemite? They do run busses to all of those places. This conversation should be moved to GT. ∴ here…♠ 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Conversation on this topic is continuing at Talk:Green Tortoise

[edit] Sources Collection

I have started a collection of sources we can use in improving articles in Category:Burning Man or for writing new articles, located at User:Todfox/Burning Man/Sources. Please feel free to edit that page to any articles or sources you think should be included. If you have comments on the quality of the links, you can use User talk:Todfox/Burning Man/Sources to discuss them. Thanks! Kit 21:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

I went ahead and archived the Links dispute since it, thankfully, appears to be over. It is now located in Talk:Burning Man/Archive02.

Hopefully continued work will improve the quality of this article! I hope to work on adding sources/contribute to general editting rewriting soon. Kit 21:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Letter to Bman's Media Team

Dear Media Team:

I am a 2-time attendee of the Burning Man event. I also am an editor for Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/). I would like to use some of the images I took at the event in articles on Burning Man, theme camps, and other topics relating to the Burner subculture. However, in order for me to use photos in our encyclopedia they must be released under the GNU Free Documentation License, the copyright which covers wikipedia as a whole. This means that although copyright would be retained by myself, I would be granting permission for others to use, copy, and share the photos freely including for commercial use. For the complete text see: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL

Since I was not a 'Media' tagged photographer when attending these events, I would like your permission specifically to release the following images of mine under the GFDL: http://www.kitoconnell.com/gallery/bman/bman02/temple02/temple11.jpg.html http://www.kitoconnell.com/gallery/bman/bman02/temple02/temple5.jpg.html http://www.kitoconnell.com/gallery/bman/bman04/bm04burn/img_0080.jpg.html http://www.kitoconnell.com/gallery/bman/bman04/img_0138.jpg.html http://www.kitoconnell.com/gallery/bman/bman04/bm04burn/img_0080.jpg.html http://www.kitoconnell.com/gallery/bman/bman04/img_0069.jpg.html http://www.kitoconnell.com/gallery/bman/bman04/img_0436.jpg.html http://www.kitoconnell.com/gallery/bman/bman04/img_0436.jpg.html http://www.kitoconnell.com/gallery/bman/bman04/img_0170.jpg.html

I do not believe it is possible to identify any people from these photos,although if you wish to withhold permission for the photos which picture people in them I will certainly understand. However, it would help people to understand the event and subculture better if some or all of these pictures could be used in our encyclopedia. Alternatively, if you have other photos which can be released under the GFDL please let me know.

Thanks in advance, Kit

I tried to pick a variety of pictures which mostly do not picture anyone in them, including a number of pictures of two temples by David Best. Hopefully we will get permission. I can try and dig up something suitable for Theme camp and ask again when it comes to it, if we get permission to use this batch. I'll update this page when I get a reply. Kit 04:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I received my first reply from a Dennis Hinkamp who works with the Burning Man Media Team. He said the idea of releasing photos into the GFDL is a new one for them and so there would have to be discussion with the team. In particular, he seems concerned that the GFDL would allow someone to use one of these images as stock photography which they have restricted in the past. This is somewhat true, since the GFDL allows for commercial use and alteration. I replied:

I certainly understand the need for discussion with the team. I'd just like to reiterate that the actual text of the GFDL can be found here: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL so your team can discuss it fully. I hope that the team approves my images or some other images for use by the encyclopedia but I plan to honor your decision. Of course, given the volunteer/consensus nature of the wikipedia and the fact that I have no special authority beyond that of a volunteer, I can't control what other people do with other images.

Anyway, keep up the good work.

Cheers,

Kit

Should they refuse to use my images, I will endeavor to verify with them what year the restrictions were imposed so that we could endeavor to only use images which predate that time. Kit 19:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks kit, I would direct them to this page as well. I have a number of images of David's temples starting around 2001... If it makes sense in your dialogue, you might ask more generally about what actions we should take in considering future image additions to the GFDL wikipedia project. ∴ here…♠ 21:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The representative of the Burning Man media team has asked that we not use photos because they do not wish them placed into the GFDL. This is not a 'hard no' but a no until some of their concerns can be addressed; I have sent the following reply:

Can I have your permission to post this to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_Man where discussion of this issue is going on with the other editors (minus your email address, of course!)? I would like the input of editors more familiar with Wikipedia and image licensing issues and it would be easiest if I could quote your concerns directly rather than paraphrasing. Thanks!

Also, can you tell me if there was a specific year when these restrictions on media use of images at Bman went into effect? Have the same restrictions been in place since the beginning (or at least since it moved to Black Rock)?

Kit

Although I would prefer to only use images that are not in violation of Bman's image restrictions, I won't mess with the ones in the article yet until we have further dialogue with the media team. Kit 23:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV complaint by 65.182.172.87

Comment by 65.182.172.87:

     Comment: No, I guess it's not. I'm disputing the neutrality of this
     article, not only because of the dispute regarding your handling of
     the links, but also because of the disappearance of the "criticism of
     Burning Man" section, which is hardly very NPOV.

     I'll take a look at the rest of the article, and see if there are any
     other objections to be made.

(This comment also refers to a links dispute which can be found in Talk:Burning Man/Archive02.

I agree that the Criticism section should be restored. Has the text of the criticism section actually been deleted or just the subheading? It looks like the text that used to be under criticism is now part of the Timeline section, in which case it should be easy enough to restore the subheading in preparation for eventual expansion of that section.

Do you still request that all links be included, period? In our last discussion, because we could not come to consensus, I made the following request: In order to facilitate dispute resolution (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution) on this matter, would you be willing to try to settle this via a survey (Wikipedia:Survey guidelines) or, failing that, mediation (see Wikipedia:Mediation)? If your desire is still the same as before, then my request stands: A survey, or mediation? If you have some other idea in mind on how we can reach consensus, please suggest it.

Finally, I would again like to remind you that per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, please insert your comments at the end of the discussion rather than in the middle of mine. Kit 21:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Burning Man 2005 was my first Burn, but I had been involved with my regional Burners in Canada for close to a year. After reading this discussion I have a few thoughts to add.

• Controversy always has a right to be explored. Heck the Controversy about Burning Man could probably fill it's very own wikipedia article. If there was no controversy, there would be no BORG2, or BORG3...
• My only request regarding Controversy is that it be kept to the point. People have disputes about commerce, and whether internet transactions count as playa commerce. Is it really our obligation to subsidize art projects? There are 36,000 people from Black Rock City who could detail at least one controversy. If it gets too verbose, seriously, dedicate a separate page to it.
• As for the links. Links to the Burning Man official website is necessary. The maps of Burning Man are pretty neat (and technically available on the BM website). Packing lists and trip suggestions are also available on the BM official website, though the wikitravel was a novel suggestion. Links to theme camps should be a no-go. There are hundreds of theme camps. If the ones that weren't mentioned in the article weren't such mainstays, then I might be complaining about that.
• If everyone signs their posts, this also makes the conversation a lot more civil.

Does that cover it? That's just my two cents. --Waterspyder 22:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. We should start with a concise section giving a broad overview of the major controversies about the event and once it grows large enough, spawn off a separate article which will be linked along with the more concise overview in the main article-- some others I can think of that waterspyder didn't mention are its effect on Empire/Gerlach, the outlawing of guns and pets in BRC, whether the event has grown too large, the supposedly worsening spectator to participant ratio, the presence of children, and increased restrictions brought on by cooperation with the police so there is easily enough for a separate article especially if the author is willing to find sources for all criticism. It will be important to maintain an NPOV when writing it: to give a broad example, 'some attendees feel the event has grown to large' rather than 'the event has grown too large' or 'most burners agree the event has grown too large.' I propose Controvery about Burning Man as this future article's title, unless Controversies about Burning Man is considered more appropriate. Kit 02:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I vote for Controversy about Burning Man although Burning Controversy would sound hotter... just not as explicit and practical. I also agree with everything else that Kit has mentioned. I think it should be apparent to anyone at this point that there is a lot of controversy that wheels around and it is hard to accomodate mentioning all of it. --Waterspyder 19:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

To play devils advocate, why take the contraversy out of the article? Take the Burning Shithead Festival for instance. Clearly, it is a related festival which people might want to know about, and seems more useful if listed with the others. Maybe it should be granted a place of distinction, like a subsection, or the end of the section (current version). No opinion about other specific contraversies, just though I mention this one. - 130.88.123.188 17:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I realize work has been stalled on this for a bit, but I don't believe consensus was to remove controversy from the article, but rather to give a broad overview of some of the major controversies here with potentially a larger, more detailed article on another page. The reasoning behind this was the amount of controversy people have generated on this festival over the years, not a desire to keep it from being included in the main article -- I agree some needs to be there, too. Kit 19:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this still disputed??

From a quick skim, there's some discussion about photos -- which isn't really relevent to the big "NEutrality Disputed" banner. There seems to be at least a casual consensus that the controversy belongs on wikipedia, but the only discussion left is whether it belongs within the article, in a section at the end of the article, or in its own section. If my take is accurate, then can we at least start the process and take the banner down? As is, the "Burning Shithead" and "AntiBurningman" festivals ARE mentioned within the text of the article. Scix 04:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The complaint was not mine initially but let me try to address this. First, the photos obviously are not related, I agree -- I will try to address this in its own section later. Anyway, as to the NPOV complaint I think that the article could do a much better job of presenting the broad spectrum of complaints about the event -- it mentions two anti-festivals but little of the reasons they exist, and it doesn't even mention a number of the larger controversies such as the criticism of the event by locals.

So yes, there is some controversy mentioned. I do not think necessarily it espouses a POV, but it could definitely be more NPOV than it is now. Whether this means we should leave the tag or remove it is something I leave up to others' though. I am not inspired to be bold about this. I would rather see it removed and more added to the article, but for now I am afraid I need to take a nap. Naps take precedence over wikilife. ;)Kit 13:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dialogue w/ Burning Man Media Team 2

I received permission to post the following from Dennis Hinkamp of Burning Man's media team:

Hi Kit -

I think we are going to have to step back and think about this and say "no" for now. We all uniformly like Wikipedia but the way the images are presented for possible commercial use violates the contracts we have been making our photographers adhere to all these years. There is also a link on your site that's linked to Creative Commons.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lightmatter_burningman.jpg

They have a method of specifying "not for commercial use" though the photographer is not using it in this case. Is there any way to modify your agreement in this way?

The way we read it, Coke could grab an image off of Wikipedia and run an ad branding Coke to Burning Man. Maybe I am oversimplifying, but do you see the danger?

So, we are not saying no forever but no for now until some of these issues can be sorted out.

Respectfully,

Dennis

While waiting to receive permission to post this (which, as I said, I have just received), I also received the following from Burning Man's Communications Manager, Andie Grace:

Kit,

Thanks for checking in. The simplest way to phrase the policy for that discussion is that Burning Man doesn't allow commercial use of any imagery obtained at the event, without specific written permission from Burning Man. Burning Man defines commercial use as "any use beyond your friends and family", so releasing images to completely unrestricted public use is beyond the scope of what we are able to allow. We have promised our community that this is how we will enforce our copyrights, so we are bound to uphold it universally.

I don't have all the tickets since the desert in front of me, but I have back to 98, and the "No Commercial Use" clause was definitely in place at least that long ago. Marian Goodell seems to remember that said clause dates back as far as 1995, and I could provide you with a verified date with a little poking around, but it would take me a little longer.

You may post my comments if you like.

Thanks,

Andie Grace

Communications Manager, Burning Man

So apparently we might be able to use images from prior to 1995, if we can find any and release them into the GFDL, but this obviously limits depictions of the event in its most modern incarnation. It does not seem that worthwhile to request a verified date though.

Is it possible to use images on wikipedia that are licensed only for non-commercial use? My understanding is NO.

However, it seems that what Dennis and Andie are missing a critical item: While items under the GFDL can be used for commercial purposes, derivative work must be licensed under the GFDL as well. So if someone took my GFDL image and turned it into a Coca-Cola commercial, Coca-Cola would be legally bound to release their commercial under the GFDL as well, allowing me in turn make my own commercial making fun of Coca-Cola? Additionally, is it correct that their commercial would either have to include the entire text of the GFDL or a link back to Wikipedia's text? It seems like these two clauses effectively prevent the sort of commercial exploitation that BMorg is concerned about, but I would like editors more experienced with wikipedia's image policy and the GFDL to back me up on this before I make these assertions to Burning Man. Kit 00:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This analysis is correct; however I doubt it will assuage Burning Man's concerns because even though it may not be in a commercial entity's interest to use GFDL photos, they still legally can. If Burning Man is as paranoid about commercialization of their event as the agreement and these followup messages make out, I believe it is unlikely that Burning Man will ever willingly agree to allow photos taken at Burning Man to be released under the GFDL. However, their legal standing to prevent the release of photos taken at Burning Man under the GFDL is questionable. See my analysis at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Burning Man, images, GFDL, and unusual image restrictions. Nohat 09:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

(I moved this to a new section for clarity) Kit 00:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have started a dialogue about the unusual issues raised by this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Burning Man, images, GFDL, and unusual image restrictions.

It should be noted that although in these messages Burning Man seems to be implying that they control the copyrights of images taken at Burning Man, that is not in fact the case. The copyrights are retained by the original photographers. They are attempting to apply new restrictions to the use of photographs taken at Burning Man, which is not something that they can do in a way which is legally enforceable because they don't own or control the copyrights. The only restrictions which might apply are the ones in the agreement between the photographer and Burning Man. While these messages make it clear what their intentions are, it should be clear that we have no legal obligation to not use these photos. If we choose not to use these photos, it will have to be because we are electing to do so, not because we are legally obligated to do so. Nohat 09:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have decided to delete my image, Image:Neonman.jpg - see Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2005_November_4. I've licensed another, remarkably similar image, Image:Neonman2.jpg, which is licensed {{PermissionAndFairUse}} instead of {{gfdl}}. Page updated accordingly! - Ali-oops^✍ 19:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archived Village pump discussion

The following discussion took place on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) Kit 18:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC):

[edit] Archived discussion: Burning Man, images, GFDL, and unusual image restrictions

We've encountered some unusual issues in regards to image use and the GFDL on Talk:Burning Man. The Burning Man event requires that all attendees agree not to use images they take at the event for commercial purposes.

We are attempting to obtain permission from the Burning Man organization to use some pictures on the page, but they are leery of releasing images under the GFDL. Even reporters and other members of the media, who are given special permission to make commercial use of images they take, must agree to very restrictive uses of those images which are probably incompatible with the GFDL. The discussion is two fold: is there a way to get the BMorg to agree to our use of the images, and if they do not agree what do we do? This is an unusual issue with which I am having some difficulty applying our image policies and may not be an area which has come up in exactly this way before.

Background on the discussion can be found at Talk:Burning Man#Images of/at Burning_Man and Talk:Burning Man#Letter to Bman's Media Team. The most recent updates and ongoing discussion can be found in Talk:Burning Man#Dialogue w/ Burning Man Media Team 2.

Comments from those more experienced in these issues appreciated on that page. Kit 01:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If they do not agree, we delete the images. You say they are available for non-commercial use only: that makes them speedies by decree of Jimbo unless and until agreement is reached. They have the option of releasing them into the public domain, of course, but I don't suppose they'll like that much either. You may be able to rope in someone from the Foundation for assistance. -Splash^talk 01:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the person who takes the photo the sole holder of the copyright? How can the Burning Man org regulate the copyright under which photos taken by attendees fall under? -Greg Asche (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Using a small number of photos, for which no free alternatives exist, in the context of illustrating the Burning Man article itself would in my judgment qualify for a fair use tag. It is not as good as having a GFDL image, but it allows them to maintain the ownership they desire while asserting our legal right to make limited, educational use of otherwise copyrighted materials. Dragons flight 02:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone might take pictures without participating in an agreement, and own the copyright. Are we supposed to enforce an agreement in which we are not participating? (SEWilco 03:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

First of all, we are under no legal obligation to enforce an agreement to which we are not a party. If a photo has been legitimately released under the GFDL, we can use the photos however we want, provided we abide by the terms of the GFDL.

The agreement does state "commercial use of all imagery taken at Burning Man is forbidden without express permission". If someone releases photos they have taken at Burning Man under the GFDL, and those photos are subsequently used commercially, the photographer may be in violation of the agreement. Given that, I think it would be wise to advise our users who upload photos from Burning Man and attempt to release them under the GFDL that doing so may be in violation of their contract with Burning Man, and that they should consult their lawyer before doing so. I do not think that Wikipedia and the foundation are at legal risk for using Burning Man photos which have been released by the photographers under the GFDL, so any policy we adopt should not be justified by an argument that using those photos puts us at any legal risk.

The question about the legal risk to the photographers themselves, though, is less clear. Unfortunately, the agreement is poorly worded and so the legal situation is murky. This restriction only prohibits attendees themselves from commercially using imagery taken at Burning Man. Since the agreement is only between Burning Man and the attendee, if taken literally, it cannot really be construed as applying to anyone else. There is a reason that lawyers use lots of verbiage in contracts: so that the status of situations like this are never left vague. If I were them, I would have made it say something like "Attendees shall not themselves use, cause to be used, or allow to be used any imagery taken at Burning Man for any commercial purpose." This would have made clear what they have left vague. If this ever were to go to court, I think the fact that the agreement did not say that would put Burning Man at a serious legal disadvantage. Furthermore, there is a question of whether or not a clause limiting the use of photos in this way would be legally enforceable. In my opinion (and IANAL), Burning Man would lose a case if they tried to sue an attendee who released photos taken at Burning Man under the GFDL.

Now that this has been brought to their attention, I would expect (and hope) next year to see the agreement spell out this restriction more clearly, so that people can make more informed decisions about whether to agree to the contract. However, the question of whether or not such a restriction is legally enforceable remains open. Nohat 09:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, just to clarify: the images are owned by the original copyright holder who took them while attending the Burning Man event; however, attendees technically agreed to not release photos for commercial use without permission of the Burning Man organization's media team. The biggest question is, are we (that is Wikipedia, as I won't be submitting my own images in violation of this) or should we be bound by this restriction?

IMHO I would like to see us abide by the restriction because it shows Wikipedia is a good citizen, but I recognize it might set a very bad precedent.

The second, smaller question is, is it fair to represent the GFDL as potentially protecting against use of images taken at Burning Man in corporate advertisements? This seems to be the major concern of the Burning Man media team, but in my reading of the GFDL if, for example, Coca-Cola were to use an image of Burning Man which had been placed into the GFDL in one of their commercials, they would also have to release the commercial itself into the GFDL. In addition, my understanding is Coca-Cola would also have to somehow either include the entire text of the GFDL in their ads or link to Wikipedia's copy of the GFDL in their ad? Kit 07:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I am the copyright holder of one of the images in question; Image:Neonman.jpg, which had been released under the GFDL. Can I now revoke that somehow and retro-license it under, say, FairUseAndPermission or somesuch? - Ali-oops^✍ 08:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If you can't relicense for some reason, as the copyright holder you can license another copy of your image in any way you wish. You can make copies from your original and you can do whatever you want with them. The GFDL only applies to the one version to which the GFDL is attached. (SEWilco 13:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

I should point out that "any way you wish" depends upon your wishes, which are affected by your limitations. If you're under a contract that you have to pay (or be paid by) someone $100 whenever you make a copy then this will affect your decisions. (SEWilco 13:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

Whilst you can't "relicense" images, what this discussion has shown is that you weren't legally entitled to release it under the GFDL in the first place, so that "license" is meaningless... does that make sense? Tagging it FU - not FUAP, since as we've seen you're not controlling all relevant rights - might be a useful solution in the interim, if you do feel it is fair use in that context. Shimgray | talk | 13:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

We don't know the photograph's background. Maybe it was taken through a telescope from outside the area. Maybe the photographer got in without having to agree to anything. Is there a WikiResearch service? But if Wikipedia is not party to an agreement then why is this an issue? Anyone can scribble something, but that does not require everyone to obey it. (SEWilco 13:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

People with such photographs might want to consider licensing them with {{Limited Use}}. This permits reuse, including for commercial purposes, but only in connection with a proper encyclopedic article about the subject or in which the subject is referenced. There is also {{Limited Use-person}} for pictures of individual people. That might avoid the problems that the Burning Man agreement was intended to deal with. Whether this would adaquetely protect such a photographer is a legal question, and IANAL, and i haven't even seen the text of the Burning Man photo agreement so i have no useful opnion. DES ^(talk) 15:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Images and video which are reproductions of an event or performance (especially one occurring on private property) are considered to be derivative works of that performance and hence require the copyright permission of the performers. Examples of this that are often defended are movies and sporting events. I can not just go into a movie theater, video tape the movie, and resell it. That is a clear violation of production company's copyright. Similarly, I can't take photos or video at a sporting event (e.g. a football game) and then go distribute those without the express permission of the authority managing the event (e.g. the NFL). The same rules apply to performance art (especially on private property) though an artist defending their rights in that case is more uncommon.

As a matter of law, if we knowingly allow to be violated the copyright of a third party, then the contributory infringement clause of US copyright law can apply. Which is to say that even though we are not parties to the agreement, if we redistribute content under terms we know to be invalid, then we could be culpable as well.

There are some gray areas here. For example, the copyright would nominally vest in the performers, and without some statement of assignment, it is not obvious that the Burning Man Group has the authority to dictate terms of use. (Maybe such an agreement is part of the permission to attend the event?) So, I would not be sure that Burning Man would win the legal dispute; however, for us there is a simpler solution that avoids the potential problem. In the context, there are very good grounds for fair use and since the only thing we are worried about is the non-commercial clause, no one would have to violate the terms of their agreement if we argue that fair use is our rationale for inclusion. Dragons flight 15:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

{{Limited Use}} seems perfect, except that it appears to be up for deletion and not in keeping with Wikipedia's principles, at least according to some. I was under the impression that {{Fair Use}} images are frequently subject to deletion -- am I mistaken on this? Would this not apply to Burning Man images? Kit 10:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

{{Fair Use}} images are subject to deletion when they do not qualify as fair use where they are used. Examples

• "Fair use" image that is not used in any article. There can not be any "fair use" if the image is not used.
• The image is missing essential information (typically, its source) so that a judgement on fair use can not be made.
• The image is only used in a context that is clearly not fair use (such as using an album cover with a picture of a dog to illustrate Dog where the album or artists are not under discussion).

So, there have been a number of deletions of "fair use" images where the tag was misused.

--Tabor 19:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think images taken at Burning Man dealing with the event or related topics would qualify as fair use? Kit 19:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have decided to delete my image, Image:Neonman.jpg - see Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2005_November_4. I've licensed another, remarkably similar image, Image:Neonman2.jpg, which is licensed {{PermissionAndFairUse}} instead of {{gfdl}}. Page updated accordingly! - Ali-oops^✍ 22:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of major commercial publications have run pictures of Burning Man in articles about the event. How do they get around this? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Their photographers got permissioin from the Burning Man media team, who object to the images being entered into the GFDL because of the unlimited commercial use clause. i.e., if a picture appeared in Time Magazine the photographer got permission to publish the photos in that magazine, but agreed not to publish it elsewhere such as a stock photography service. The media team is concerned/objects to the way they would no longer control the future uses of images posted to Wikipedia, and how it could, they fear, eventually end up in an advertisement as a consequence. Kit 03:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Add new comments here

an interesting parallel situation at the louvre: meta:It_is_forbidden_to_take_pictures_! ∴ here…♠ 02:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Interesting comments from there:

However, this ban clearly blocks access to a unique heritage which should belong to the world, without needing to go through the Louvre, its website, CD-ROM, postcards or books. From now, artwork from the Louvre will be accessible only through an exclusive filter. No other person, institution, company, association will be able to display artwork from the Louvre without authorization. This includes Wikipedia.

So that refers to a museum, but the same argument could be made of Burning Man. Thanks for pointing this out. Kit 05:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burning Man: Beyond Black Rock

Added this to the links section. Perhaps this and other Burning Man videos should have their own articles created. --Matthew Cohen (Tccmod: user / talk / contribs) 00:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorder / Nudity Sex and Drugs

I moved and re-wrote the nudity section so that it fitted the flow better - jsut before the police and public safety sections, dug use could use som language about not taking drugs from strangers and thr risk of getting dosed - anybody up for writing it? Sexuality could use some language on sexual assult prevention as that issue has the attention of BMorg. LEO's and Rangers. Trapper 08:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a public safety manual. Information on real issues in the past is one thing, writing about issues that aren't specific to BM is another (should we have a section about not taking food from strangers? No telling how long that bacon has been sitting in the warm melted ice! wikipedia isn't a place to instruct people on who and who not to trust). If you can find a published source of material to reference about the "dangers of taking drugs from strangers at burning man" and want to include any encyclopedic information it may contain (please reference you source in this case), then maybe you migh be able to contribute something appropriate and germane to the article. But I suspect your talking about orignal research and being a little didactic, neither of which is appropriate for wikipedia.

If the sexual assault issue has recieved some attention, then mention it in an encylopedic way, not a "How To Prevent Sexual Assualt" sort of way, I don't know if it would be germane to the "sexuality" section though. --Brentt 19:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nudity, sex And drugs -> Illicit Activities

The whole association of "Nudity, Sex and Drugs" comes from a POV. Nudity isn't necessarily sexual unless your coming from a traditional POV (which would not be NPOV), and as far as I can tell, sex and drugs only go together because of a cliche. I'm renaming the section "illicit activity" and removing the irrelevant and redundant talk of nudity in it (the nudity is talked about in other sections as I seem to recall--I havn't read the whole article in a while, and I don't have time now, but if not, then it needs to be mention either in its own section, or a more relavant section). I replaced the phrase "open sexuality" with "public sex" as it could be gleaned from context that the original contributor wasn't really talking about "open sexuality" they we're talking about public sex. --Brentt 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some good points - I think the section originated because the headonistic aspect of BM got lumped together - however public sex and drug use are both against the law so in that context they belong together. one way to go would be to handle the legal stuff in the current paragraph, move the nudity stuff to an section on dress/costume styles and some place else mention that the playa is a hostile enrironment and link out to the BM survival guide. Trapper 04:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a cited Reference to "sexuality" (e.g. open sexuality) at Burning man, but I don't see one about "public sex". Nudity doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else in the article - so I added it back; and "illicit" is implicit in the wording of the associated acts. - Dreadlocke 20:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Illicit" is implicit in the wording how? There was a reason, explained above for the change. You didn't adress it. There was a subtle POV issue being adressed, and you changed it back without adressing said POV issue. The section is not germane to "open sexuality" or "public nudity", as neither are inherently illicit. The nudity and "open sexuality" should be mentioned but in a section that doesn't automatically associate it with illicit activities, as they are quite seperate acts. It'd be like having a section in the sexuality article called "homosexuality and pedophilia", that goes on with an implicit assumption about the connection of the two. (this of course wouldn't be as an egregious an obvious POV issue with the structure, but it is similar nonetheless, hence why it is a "subtle" POV issue)

Your right about the reference, it isn't really germane to the content of that section. That doesn't mean the section should go back to the version with the POV issue though. Brentt 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks on the reference thing, I'm the one who originally put it there, so it kinda stuck out for me... :)

As for my other comments, I think "illicit" means "illegal", and to me that was implicit in the wording "not tolerated by law enforcement" and by the fact that tickets are given out for the behavior. From what I see in the history, POV only came into it when someone changed the title to "Illicit activities". "Open sexuality" and "public nudity" were included in the section to begin with. After the heading change, these were basically removed and not referenced anywhere else in the article. The Cited Reference in the section was no longer applicable, since it talked about "Public Nudity" and "Sexuality". I don't think the article needs a section on "Illicit activity", the original was fine with perhaps some improved wording to clarify any distinction between "legal" and "illegal" activities. Improve the article by writing something that makes more sense. The way "public nudity" is referenced now doesn't make as much sense, nor does it convey the nature of public nudity at BM. How do "public sex" and "open sexuality" really differ? Doesn't the broader "open sexuality" cover "public sex"? - Dreadlocke 21:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and your last edit removed the "References" section as well as other sectional ordering. Careful when you revert to an earlier version. - Dreadlocke 21:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the current "Illicit activities" section from the "subtle pov" angle, I think you still have your problem with associating nudity with illicit activity and public sex - perhaps an even stronger association than the previous version. Even considering the qualifer "unlike public nudity", it still looks like it is an illicit act and is associated with both public sex and drugs. The heading is the real problem, I think. But I guess we could just remove the reference to nudity from that section altogether since it's now addressed in the section above it (which needs a little expansion). References to the entire illicit section are needed, tho... - Dreadlocke 04:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

References added Trapper 16:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, Trapper! Sex and drugs, oh the cliché! (sorry, couldn’t resist). They don't really add much info on "illicit public sex acts" and law enforcement's reaction to it, but I guess the one "doing the nasty on stage" reference will do. - Dreadlocke 20:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "nudity" from the "illicit activities" section, which I believe was your intent, Brentt? If not, we can put it back and discuss... Dreadlocke 20:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Open sexuality" is not the same as "public sex". While "public sex" could be considered "open sexuality" not everything that would be considered "open sexuality" would be considered "public sex"--get it? ("Isn't Hawaii the same as Earth? Hawaii is on Earth after all?".) Its a very bad choice of words. --Brentt 05:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was exactly my line of reasoning. The thrust of my statement was that you completely removed the reference to "open sexuality" at BM, and clouded the issue of nudity, which were two of the main points being made in the original section - no matter how badly it may have been worded. My initial concern is irrelevant now, since I've added a new section.

Generally when I delete a bad reference (as you properly did) I attempt to write a new one that encompasses all the original "good" ideas that were presented. For instance, instead of having two sections, I was thinking more along the lines of writing a single section that mentioned "open sexuality" as being part of the BM experience, and stemming from that a reference to the aspects of "illicit public sex", but from what you seemed to indicate, you didn't want to see the "illicit" being associated with anything presumably legal - as in "nudity, sex, and drugs". As I said, I agreed there should be "improved wording to clarify any distinction between "legal" and "illegal" activities," meaining nudity/open sexuality, and drugs/public sex acts. - Dreadlocke 07:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] clean up

"Fandango loves you drunk"(?) among other unencyclopedic atrocities. Looks more like an old BB then an encyclopedia :) Dlohcierekim 19:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that it reads like a brochure. This article has had consisten problems with burners making contributions in a style that is not encyclopedic but is rather like people trying to prime others for the event. Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of info (there are hundreds of other sites for that stuff, including the official BM website.)

Of course there are always going to be burners who are excited about the event making contributions like that. I think we'd do well that have a info box on the talk page to that reminds people that this is a place for encyclopedic information, not a brochure. Brentt 06:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. For now, the top priority would be cleaning up the theme camps section, it's slowly growing with vanity edits. I oscillated between just deleting it all and keeping a handful of representative ones. I do think theme camp websites are an interesting addition for people learning about the event, but I'm not sure how you would select 4-5 and justify deleting new additions. --Zambaccian 16:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Theme camps at Burning Man should have the same encyclopedic standards as shops along a famous street. You wouldn't list every Starbucks and McDonalds that has ever existed along a famous thoroughfare, but you might mention a few that have significantly altered or established the character of that area. Take 42nd Street for example. --Vees 19:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds nice enough in theory, but someone with more knowledge than me should do make the cut. --Zambaccian 07:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citations tag

I've asked User:NLOleson to comment here on why he/she feels the page needs a citations tag - if there is no further explanation by the time I get back from the playa I'll remove the tag. Now back to packing Trapper 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listing Theme Camps

The listing of some theme camps and not all theme camps seems unfair and incomplete. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of theme camps each year. I would like to strike the listing of any theme camps in this article. Thoughts? —XSG 01:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)