So when one of the cofounders of Burning Man, John Law, filed a federal lawsuit last week in an effort to make the festival’s name and trademark public, some Burners cheered—elated by the idea of Burning Man as a populist entity. That’s because the Burning Man festival, despite its counterculture image, is actually operated by a real corporation—two, in fact: Black Rock City LLC and Paper Man LLC, which was formed in 1997 between Law and the two other original owners to control the name and service mark, “Burning Man.” Law says his ex-partners, Larry Harvey and Michael Mikel, have tried to claim sole ownership of the Burning Man trademarks, violating an agreement that he says the three signed after Law split with the organization in 1996. In his suit, Law seeks to strip Harvey and Mikel of ownership of the event’s name and place rights to the trademark in the public domain. “I decided to fight to keep anyone from having an exclusive right to capitalize on these brands,” Law writes in a blog he has devoted to public conversation about the suit. “Burning Man belongs to everyone.”
But Harvey and Mikey have said they’ll do everything they can to keep the festival’s trademark private. In a statement released on the official Burning Man Web site , a spokeswoman for Black Rock City LLC, said that putting Burning Man’s name in the public domain would make it “freely available to individuals who would only use it to make money” and that it would “go against everything all of us have worked for over the years.”
Brian Doherty has attended Burning Man for 12 years and is the author of the 2004 publication “This is Burning Man” (Little, Brown). A senior editor at Reason Magazine, Doherty spoke with NEWSWEEK’s Jessica Bennett about the controversy. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: People travel thousands of miles and spend thousands of dollars to attend this event every summer. What’s the attraction?
Brian Doherty: What makes people want to do it, despite this incredibly physically vigorous environment, with dust storms and wind storms, despite the price of going, including the ticket price, transportation, tents and the price of doing the art? You do it because it provides an opportunity to adopt an identity that you maybe can’t normally—to express yourself in a more colorful, or perhaps more sexual fashion. It gives you a chance to be creative in a way that everyday life doesn’t provide, and that’s the main attraction.
How would you describe Burning Man as a social phenomenon?
You’re trying to create a colorful, creative mini-city. And it’s a need that 40,000 people are willing to pay and go through extreme physical hardship to achieve … I think that’s an interesting and important part of America’s cultural scene. There’s a sense of social freedom … it’s great to have this created atmosphere where you know you’re not going to be judged.
If John Law is successful, his lawsuit would give outside entities access to the Burning Man name, including businesses looking to make money. How is that going to play out in a community that is so notoriously anti-corporate?
If Burning Man enters into the public domain, a lot of things are going to start happening that are going to give heartburn to a lot of Burners.
If that happens, do you think the festival can survive?
Absolutely. There’s no reason to believe that [this will] kill the spirit of Burning Man. The experience is still going to be as real and vivid and life-affirming as it is now, no matter what anyone in the outside world is trying to do in terms of selling this video or product with the Burning Man name. I assure you these people in the desert are going to keep doing this whether or not it’s called Burning Man. I personally think the outcome of the lawsuit is ultimately irrelevant.
Do you think other Burners feel that way?
The spirit of Burning Man is the community, and if that spirit is strong—which I believe it is—it can resist and survive the problems that some people see in making it public domain. What Burning Man is and what it means to its attendees—community, creativity as the core of civic life and personal expression—these things are going to survive.
Have you seen the Burner mentality change at all over the years?
The nature of the experience obviously changes when you go from 4,000 [in 1995] to 40,000 people. When I first went in 1995 it was still deep in the Black Rock playa. You had to drive about 15 miles in this wasteland to even find it, and it was a completely random conglomeration—the city had no shape. Now it’s a straight path [and] a defined camp. That’s one main difference. The other is that [years ago] it was pretty anarchic and lawless—there were some police there but there was little enforcement. It’s become much more of a locked-down experience with lots more rules. It felt chaotically liberatory in a different way back when I first went.
You interviewed John Law while researching your book. Why do you think he has chosen to go about this in such a public way?
I think he has decided to make a public stand for what he thought Burning Man should be about—not an enterprise owned by a corporation but an idea where people can gather and create and express themselves. It was a much more anarchic experience up until the time John Law left.
Do you think his effort is an attempt to bring back what Burning Man once symbolized?
To me, this seems like this is [Law’s] pranksterish attempt to undercut what Burning Man has become in his eyes. He has a valid standard to claim he’s being defrauded, [but I see this as] an act of social commentary about the nature of Burning Man more than it is a grab for money. He wouldn’t have any interest in actually running the event.
Isn’t it somewhat of an irony that in the midst of this anti-corporate sentiment, Burning Man is charging some $200 a ticket for people to attend?
As a libertarian I see nothing wrong with purchasing a commodity. When you break it down, Burning Man is a capitalist enterprise. People put it together and sell tickets for it. The entertainers, the people who make it an experience worth going, are paying to be there. And the only reason we can even do this is because we’ve accumulated enough excess in [the] outside capitalist world to afford going.
Do you think most Burners understand that?
I do. I think how the super anti-corporate people come to grips with the fact that there is an LLC that runs the event is that there’s a civic element to it. Look at it this way, we’re building a city together and this ticket price is our willing contribution to make the city work. They can see their ticket price as a contribution to the community they are choosing to build as opposed to purchasing a commodity.
You’re obviously going to keep attending Burning Man. What’s the appeal for you?
I’ve been attending the event since 1995 when there were 4,000 people, and I instantly recognized it as a really fascinating place with really fascinating people. [The appeal for me] has evolved a little over the years, but it started because it gave me, a writer, the opportunity to actually do things with my hands—make a piece of art, and then watch how people enjoyed it face to face. As the years have gone by it’s evolved into a place where I know a group of people who I love and appreciate are going to gather. It’s good for the soul to kind of have a place to go to be celebratory with a community that you feel very close to because you’ve chosen to be close to and because they’re doing things that impress and amaze you. It’s a wonderful feeling.
