Burning Man Threatens Quizno's For 'Theft Of Intellectual Property' Because Of A Quizno's Ad Mocking Burning Man
from the get-over-yourself dept
Lots of folks have really strong opinions -- both positive and negative -- about Burning Man, the big "festival/experiment/one-week city in the desert" or whatever you want to call it. But no matter what you think of Burning Man, it's always seemed odd that the organization behind it acts like a crazy intellectual property maximalist at times -- including using twisted interpretations of copyright and trademark law to stop people from doing anything Burning Man doesn't like with photos from the event. It required attendees to sign over the copyright on any photos taken, for instance.But the latest move by Burning Man is really crazy. Just as this year's festival was ending last week, the sandwich chain Quizno's (long known for their amusing internet-ready commercials), released a pretty funny commercial mocking the commercialization of Burning Man in a way that pokes almost as much fun at Quizno's itself as it does at Burning Man. It does, certainly, mock the event for becoming pretty commercialized and "a place for rich people to check off their bucket list."
Burning Man takes issue with the clip and is considering legal action, not because of the mockery it makes of the more than 70,000-person annual event but because the video is theft of the event's intellectual property, according to Burning Man spokesman Jim Graham.I have no idea what that last paragraph means. You can be proactive about protecting whatever principles you want, but it doesn't allow you to sue someone for making a parody. There was no intellectual property infringed in this ad. Get over yourself, Burning Man.
"We are pretty proactive about protecting our 10 principles, one of which is decommodification," Graham said. "We get a quite a number of requests each year from companies wanting to gift participants with their product or to capture imagery or video of their products at the event, and we turn them all down."
"We'll be coordinating with our legal team to see what action we can take," Graham said.And hopefully your legal team tells you can't do jack shit about this. Nor should you. You should relax a bit and laugh at something funny and move on with your lives.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertisement, burning man, copyright, intellectual property, parody, trademark
Companies: burning man, quizno's
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Open Mockery to Burning Man
Get over yourselves - you suck donkey, bronto, blue whale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
burning man
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I am not sure where the line between parody and advertising is. The video is done as a parody but includes the description: "Quiznos and The Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials bring you the latest Toasty.TV original parody".
The about for the channel says: "Quiznos Toaster serves up the latest commercials and Quiznos videos".
Does parody fair use rights cover parody done in advertising?
From the Burning Man Website:
"The Burning Man symbol (logo), “Burning Man,” “Burning Man Project,” “Black Rock City,” “Decompression,” “Precompression,” “Burnal Equinox” and “Flambé Lounge” are protected trademarks. The design of the Burning Man (aka “the Man”) and Man base, the map and layout of Black Rock City, the design of the City’s lampposts and the Ten Principles are protected copyrights.
These trademarks and copyrights may not be used for any commercial or promotional purpose whatsoever without prior written permission from Burning Man. In order to preserve the “Man” for use in gifting and as an affinity symbol for our culture, we do not license this symbol, or any likeness, for commercial or outside purposes.
Under the Terms and Conditions of entry into the event, Burning Man shares the copyright to photos and videos obtained at the event with the photographers and videographers. This joint copyright is what enables Burning Man to protect participants’ rights if a third party obtains and uses event imagery commercially or in another unauthorized manner."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Scott on Sep 14th, 2015 @ 12:31pm
your post shows burning man doesn't know what they're talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibovitz_v._Paramount_Pictures_Corp.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to: Scott on Sep 14th, 2015 @ 12:31pm
This. And as NFL and MLB have shown time and time again, the facts don't need to be correct or legal.
"Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is prohibited."
They say it every time, and even though they have yet to win a case against a defendant for doing so, they still say it.
Sure, rebroadcasts or retransmissions of a fixed broadcast is illegal, but outlawing accounts which do not involve actual copying of video or audio by another company without their permission is bogus copyright advice from copyright maximalists who want to scare everyone into thinking they have to ask permission (and be denied) every time they want to talk about the game.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Response to: Scott on Sep 14th, 2015 @ 12:31pm
Not sure about "The design of the Burning Man (aka “the Man”) and Man base, the map and layout of Black Rock City, and the design of the City’s lampposts.
I ask again, what kind of copyright form did they use? perhaps they didn't register the 'design' and are just blowing smoke?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Proof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Response to: Scott on Sep 14th, 2015 @ 12:31pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Scott on Sep 14th, 2015 @ 12:31pm
That is usually what "This" means...we are agreeing. Apparently that was missed because I didn't hit enter twice after saying "This."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Scott on Sep 14th, 2015 @ 12:31pm
That is exactly what I said.
I think the problem is, as you said, they can say anything they want, but they aren't necessarily right legally or factually. Until the law holds them accountable for their misrepresentations as to what the law actually says or what we can do legally, this shit will continue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Makes me want run out and buy a delicious Quiznos sub
It's truly other worldly. Worth a visit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Scott on Sep 14th, 2015 @ 12:31pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Too bad for On Fire Male, that's not how trademark or copyright law works. Coke and Pepsi consistently use their competitors trademarks in their ads. And the ad is clearly mocking Burning Man, which means fair use comes into play.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boiler plate copyright notices aren't enforceable if they are contrary to copyright law, and this is the most annoying and widespread boiler plate notice out there and entirely false under US law.
Also, "Burning Man" isn't even original to this event and they have no rights to it beyond something very specific to this one specific event in a specific place at a specific time.
The Burning Man has been around for hundreds of years as a traditional pagan ritual, so get over yourself "Burning Man", you're just a poor imitation of a copycat!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There you go, in one step, BM goes from 'decommidification' to full on disney. Way to go the 'on fire adult-male.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Translation: We're the only ones allowed to profit from this event.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wicker_Man_(1973_film)
oh, could be prior art.
Damn, hope this doesn't come up in court. Pretty soon the mpaa will claim ownership of burning man's IP. too bad, quizno's thefted it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I agree that BMORG has abused copyright law, but the video contains two registered trademarks, the phrase "burning man" and the burning man logo, and I think there may be infringement there. Apart from the video being a parody of the burning man festival it is, at it's core, an ad for Quiznos sandwiches. The juxtaposition of the two trademarks with the Quiznos sandwiches could imply an endorsement of Quiznos by BMORG. There is nothing in the video that explicitly says there is no such endorsement. If one didn't know that BMORG absolutely refuses any such endorsements, one might believe it to be an endorsement, despite the parody nature of the video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No sense of humor?
As this blog itself has discussed repeatedly in past years, the event organizers have no qualms about using IP law against anybody else who tries to profit off of Burning Man. (They even require that all attendees turn over their copyright for all pictures and video taken at the event. Or something like that. They used to, at least. It's a policy widely supported by the attendees themselves.)
I'm a regular burner and a big fan of the event, and I totally cracked up watching the ad - it actually reflects the complex feelings that many burners have about the event.
Ultimately, if the ad is just a comedy sketch shot on a studio set, the brief shots of BM IP are clearly fair use. But if the ad was shot at the event, by someone who had signed their copyright over to Burning Man, and then decided that the law didn't apply to them, I wouldn't be the least bit upset if a judge decides that this ad infringes on Burning Man's IP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No sense of humor?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: aldestrawk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chill out people, nobody threatened anybody
Pretty much every news outlet has spun this into "threat" when it's really not. Following private email exchanges I've had with one of the event founders I can confirm that their are well aware of the limits of copyright ant trademark and also the Streisand effect. I'd be very surprised if they take any legal action.
Disclosure: I used to work for Burning Man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Wow. That's amazingly greedy and grabby right there.
Without that T&C agreement, people who take photos and videos would own 100% of their copyright, rather than joint ownership.
Why would Burning Man need to assume that an individual photographer cannot send a DMCA takedown, a cease & desist or sue if his/her copyrights are violated?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Burning Man
Burning Man will be on the losing end of this, and that's if their Lawyers haven't already told "Burning Man Spokesman Jim Graham" to smarten the fuck up!
Thanks for the links. Nice way to start the morning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chill out people, nobody threatened anybody
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unless they put up a giant opaque dome...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chill out people, nobody threatened anybody
[ link to this | view in thread ]