“Burning Brand” – Public Ownership or Commercial Branding at Stake
An article from the S.F. Bay Guardian summarizes on the controversy around John Law’s lawsuit: Burning Brand (Emphasis added by me).
Law hasn’t wanted anything to do with Burning Man since he left the event in 1996 — until last week, when he filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court seeking money for his share of the Burning Man brand.
Even more troubling to Harvey and a corporation that has aggressively protected the event from commercial exploitation, Law wants to move the trademarks into the public domain…
Some support Law and the declaration on his blog that “Burning Man belongs to everyone,” hoping to break the tight control that Harvey and Black Rock City LLC have exerted over their event and its icons, images, and various trademarks.
“If it’s a real fucking movement, they can give up control of the name,” Law told the Guardian in the first interview he has given about Burning Man in years. “If it’s going to be a movement, great. Or if it’s going to be a business, then it can be a business. But I own a part of that.”
Yet those who control the business, as well as many attendees who support it, fear what will happen if anyone can use the Burning Man name. They envision MTV coverage, a burner clothing line from the Gap, Girls Gone Wild at Burning Man, billboards with Hummers driving past the Man, and other co-optations by corporations looking for a little countercultural cachet.
Newsweek also covered the issue.
Pingback by B u r n l o g » Nevadans Hate / Love Burning Man
August 14, 2007 @ 8:49 am
[...] out” of Green Man with commercial green interest entering the Playa and throws in the John Law backlash for good measure. These must confirm his ire and precious opinions about the downfall of Burning [...]