I’ve attended the Burning Man festival in Nevada many times; in fact, I am a volunteer Black Rock Ranger. It’s been a truly memorable experience that I recall fondly. One of the things about Burning Man that makes it special is the freedom of self-expression in an environment that is sans arrêt (without judgment.)
As someone who tried to make a living as a professional photographer at one point, I’m pretty adamant about protecting my photo copyrights. Burning Man’s draconian and hypocritical photography rules have always left a bad taste in my mouth.
This past week, the EFF called out Burning Man on their photography rules and Burning Man defended itself. Honestly, I’m surprised it took this long for the issue to get this much attention; I’ve been aware of it for years, and Jamie Zawinski has me beat; he figured it out in 2001.
While I realize the policy is to protect the attendants of the event from having their private affairs publicized, it’s a slippery slope. The same entity that promises they’re protecting us is also imploring that we cede a valid right to them. These two things are in direct conflict with each other.
BM isn’t using these rigorous rules to only halt non-consensual exploitation; they are also using these rules to enable them to use these photographs for commercial use, royalty-free. And I am not okay with that.
Yes, we should ask first before we photograph people. Yes, we should not be leering assholes who take photographs of naked women without their consent and then plaster them all over the internet. But that also doesn’t give Burning Man carte blanche to dismantle the rights of legitimate photographers and journalists, or to control how the myriad of visual chronologies of the event are presented. The same organization that promotes freedom of speech and expression shoots itself in the foot when it seeks to control and censor innocuous mementos and journalistic integrity.
Email: 
All of my posts can be downloaded and listened to as a podcast by clicking on the 
