|
[F] Burning Man e-playa / Burning Man 2002 / General Discussion / Burning Man files suit against Voyeur Video actiongrl - 10:33am Jul 2, 2002 PST And when we jam...we don't need no ham. Thoughts? |
|
Earliest Messages Previous Messages (16 previous messages) toktomi - Tuesday, 07/02/02, 9:14:35pm (#17 of 48) personally, i don't much care for their money grubbing antics but... where is your appreciation of the irony here? come on, folks, what is all this moral indignation? think about it - corporation files suit against an artist and entrepreneur who in the face of adversity and contrary to the established rules, derives some personal gain from a fabulous life experience with no cost, damage, or loss to any other individual. it makes me smile. i don't know - i'm more one for the vigilante justice [not vigilante terrorism]. |
CmdrMark - Wednesday, 07/03/02, 2:54:04am
(#18 of 48)
Toktomi wondered:corporation files suit against an artist and entrepreneur who in the face of adversity and contrary to the established rules, derives some personal gain from a fabulous life experience with no cost, damage, or loss to any other individual.Or from the other side: Corporation files suit for breach of contract on behalf of attendees who were surreptiously filmed. Artist and entrepreneur fail to obtain a Legal Release from those filmed, invading the privacy of those attendees and subjecting those attendees who were filmed to ridicule and scorn. Didn't Jennifer Aniston recently bring suit against a tabloid because their photographer did the same thing? I believe this case was just settled prior to going to trial with an undisclosed amount of money going to Aniston. |
|
John Lee Booker - Wednesday, 07/03/02, 6:59:19am (#19 of 48) haow haow haow haow with no cost, damage, or loss to any other individualI wonder whether the women whose images were used without their consent would agree that no cost, damage, or loss resulted from the voyeurs' actions. Despite a certain renegade expression sort of thing going on at their site, these guys are basically profiteers, and their expression clearly imposes unacceptable burdens on others. Both are outside the BRC social contract. Nail 'em. |
|
trey - Wednesday, 07/03/02, 7:08:40am (#20 of 48) i'm not *that* larry harvey. i'm a different larry harvey. from those filmedand i think that's the crux of what irks me about this. (although i should be clear: i think this is a good thing, and the irk is small in relation to how good i think it is overall). it seems it's not the individual who has the right to their image, it's the burning man organization. they have the right to keep other people from using your image, but they reserve that right for themselves. why do they get to set the appropriate denominator for what's considered appropriate, rather than the subject of the image? |
|
Bob - Wednesday, 07/03/02, 8:03:12am (#21 of 48) Omit needless words. Burning Man essentially represents participants' interests year-round before the agencies and the general public. The Board has interests intrinsic to running an annual event. The Board tells participants that they stand for fostering an event where such commercial and prurient exploitation is strongly discouraged. In the Voyeur case, they are acting to preserve the nature of the event to which participants have become accustomed. It's not just a naked-without-permission issue. Some people react more strongly than others to the possibility of, er, flashing across the screen of Joe Sixpack. One can argue the visibility of the Voyeur video on the cultural radar screen, and I'm ambivalent about the amount of damage to my own reputation, but if it's repellent enough to the Board to act on repeated (since 1997) violations of bla bla bla and can present evidence of damage, I wouldn't argue too much. I'd imagine such evidence might consist of letters or emails from participants saying that they feel violated, directly or indirectly indicating that it might affect their participation (er, ticket-buying habits). Participants, I think, give implied consent to Burning Man acting in their interests and on their behalf simply by buying tickets and doing the "required reading". Last year during the July 4th week, a photographer violated my space out on the playa, and we handled his trespasses a little more directly. My own actions were on my campmates' behalf, and I didn't wait to take a poll or hold a consensus meeting. If Trey had been taking a dirt nap on the other side of camp at the time, would he have objected? |
|
IslandMan - Wednesday, 07/03/02, 9:37:18am
(#22 of 48)
Another thing to consider... I think one of the worst things that would come out of this video's distribution, is attracting the type of people who would buy it to the playa. There's already too many yahoos showing up on Friday for the sole reason of "naked chicks". |
|
brattynat - Wednesday, 07/03/02, 9:57:25am (#23 of 48) my igloo has melted... my sentiments exactly... I try to refrain from talking about it to the people i know would go for that sole reason and if it does come out in conversation, i stress the community aspect of it as well as the harsh environment, most change their minds quickly when they find out they can't buy anything there and that they have to bring everything they need to survive 'you mean you have to bring water? what? no hotel? well that's lame... just bring me pictures of naked chicks then' |
|
Rickey Ricardo Smith - Wednesday, 07/03/02, 10:44:52am (#24 of 48) Wow! I Love You Guys... Most groups would have jumped on the baseball bashing bandwagon, instead those people who sought violent ends as a means to solve the problem, (which by the way would only excerbate the problem) were admonished, and a kinder and gentler means of dealing with the problem prevailed. You guys are so cool, and I so admire you all. I would agree to let the court handle the situation. Use them as a example of what happens to companies who violate our privacy during our stay at burningman and it will be a costly, very costly product (these companies only respond when you hit them in the pocketbook where it really hurts). Make sure anyone else thinks twice about it because they will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest. Take the money recieved from the suit and buy x number of tickets and give refund vouchers to random attendee's at the gate(screw art project funds, stupid ass committies, or other such nonsense ways to spend the money. For once let us, (the festival goers) directly reap the benefit, since it would be "our" naked asses they are showing and selling. "Just my .02 cents" Rabbi Dali Rick (gogettum AG) |
|
bryan foley - Wednesday, 07/03/02, 12:09:34pm (#25 of 48) nuke em stole all copies from a local video store and plan to burn them this year!!!! |
|
Bob - Wednesday, 07/03/02, 12:23:33pm (#26 of 48) Omit needless words. In a way, this kind of imagery is part of the culture of the event, at least since the mid-1990s, an artifact of what a significant portion of the BRC and general population perceives Burning Man to be. To some, Moby-Dick is a white whale, an exposition of man's relationship with nature or fate or obsession, an exploration of America's struggles with polyglot culture, a poor excuse for an action film, or just a white whale. I vote for white whale -- that leaves the interpretation open, a tabula rasa, as it were. |
|
sugarlarry - Wednesday, 07/03/02, 2:11:51pm (#27 of 48) Calling all Hackers Don't suppose there is anyone out there who'd be willing to wreak some havoc on their site? I mean these sleazebags deserve it. At the very least, some enterprizing soul could find out who owns the company, and get some personal info on them. I'd be happy to make some calls at 2 AM in the morning to provide them with my opinion of their operation. |
|
President Haynes - Wednesday, 07/03/02, 6:01:35pm (#28 of 48) I think video cameras cause more trouble than they're worth, and I would support banning them, along w/ the art cars. I just don't think the event really requires video coverage. I could live without still photography also. I wouldn't miss it at all. herself |
|
jody - Wednesday, 07/03/02, 6:05:52pm (#29 of 48) is it possible for someone to also take a class-action lawsuit against these bastards, on behalf of the dozens of people whose privacy they invaded? all it would take is one victim and a lawyer... |
|
More Messages
Recent Messages (19 following messages) Read Subscriptions Search Post Message Email to Sysop New User Registration OK (return to the papparozzi incident) [F] Burning Man e-playa / Burning Man 2002 / General Discussion / Burning Man files suit against Voyeur Video |