The answer seems fairly obvious: stay away from burning man.
Yes, that would solve the problem, but would also accept that it is
a problem, even though it could well be avoided from so being. (I imagine this to be the case, but I could just as easily be an innocent adrift on a sea of deceit which turns out to be nothing more exotic than the chase of another dollar and the preparing of the ground - sandy knoll, let's just call it - in pursuit of that buck.) Why not reduce it to simplistic terms and chat about model releases? I would have thought that could take care of the personal
rights that might be considered abused.
Of course, that would fly in the face of the divine right of all snappers to snap at whatever takes their fancy, whether with permission or otherwise, but it might be an equitable way of keeping all parties happy. On the face of it, the incandescent hombre would appear to be a form of private property (at least in his currency as an intellectual right by virtue of his invention and recognized nomenclature); as such, could he not be be presumed to have rights of his own? Should these be in my imagination alone, then possibly my imagination has a morality which the legal situation might lack? Or does a legal position not require a moral raison d'étre?
So wouldn´t a happy solution be the use of releases as suggested, both personal and in the sense of the identity of the event?
I have to confess, though a photographer by trade myself, the notion of photographer´s rights has often appeared to me to be extended in argument well beyond the reasonable.
No, not an invitation to an exchange of vitriol or a match of IQ ratings (way too complex for me to understand) but simply a view formed over quite a long time, this thing about rights.