geekster wrote:What would tickle me is some kind of "viral" license like the GPL only different. Stipulate that the logo and marks can not be sold and nothing they are attached to can be sold except the tickets to the event(s).
geekster wrote:Cynically, I have called it "tricking" people into entertaining each other, and taking a fee. Suspense of disbelief. Good times. One day everyone will stop and look around at each other and say, "Hey! We're out in the middle of the frickin' desert!" And that will be the end of Burning Man.
To be honest, it has crossed my mind that having Burning Man pay the salaries of Larry Harvey et al. is probably the greatest caco prank of all time.
dragonfly Jafe wrote:The claim is "no-commercialism", but lately there has been a seepage into mainstream commerce (Malcom in the middle, lexus, discovery channel). Did any of the artists get reimbursed for their creations that were shown on the discovery channel (for profit to an unknown few)? How much was made by BM for these liscences?
Does the "product" BurningMan help our individual journey that engages us so wonderfully, or perhaps horribly? The BurningMan "product" pays for the infrastructure, but couldn't the same be done without the branding?
Is there really any reason why the infastructure and the number attending the event need to be bigger and bigger every year? Isn't control of the trademark just adding to the "bigness?
Isn't it possible the "yearly event" could exist quite well if it were smaller and the employee roster decreased?
Users browsing this forum: Bodmin and 4 guests