Here Today... Gone To Hell!

https://music.mxdwn.com/2023/11/14/news/guns-n-roses-sued-by-former-photographer-for-alleged-copyright-infringement-accusations-of-sexual-harassment-against-manager/

 :o

This article is easier to read:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/guns-n-roses-manager-sued-sexual-harassment-copyright-claims-1234877430/

Pretty shocking actually :-\

If the accusations in the lawsuit are true, that Fernando is a real unprofessional POS.

What a major dark cloud to hover over the band after such a successful tour comes to an end.

Abuse of power

I'm kind of surprised she said Fernando, Richard, okay, but that looked mutual to me.  I mean his mother and sister are around.  Did she talk to either one of them?  The band is managed by a team so how do you get away with taking action against somebody without everybody else wanting to know what's going on?  And she's says Jarmo, another photographer was treated the same way so how's the sexual harassment?

I couldn't read the Rollingstone article.  Did GNR address the sexual harassment allegation?  There's too many women in GNR for Fernando to keep his job if this allegation is true.

The picture part.  We know GNR is possessive of that.  I would guess they have that all tied up and are going to win on that.

Hold on another story says Jarmo wasn't treated the same way.

Is it? Fernando was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and never knew the meaning of the word "no".

looks real bad... wonder how Slash and Duff are gonna respond to this

Correct.  Per the plaintiff's filing:
"1122. Lebeis’s discriminatory intent- manifested through his habitual
stonewalling of Plaintiff to deny utilization of written contracts and his use of
photo credit as means to sexually extort Plaintiff-is further buttressed by the fact
that another photographer, named Jarmo, a male Finnish photographer who also
worked with GNR/GUNDAM/TEAM BRAZIL was not treated in the same regard
as Benzova and was allowed credit for his photographs."

I had not heard this before, so throwing it out there in case others like me had not...
The filing states Guns N' Roses is Duff, Axl and Slash.  I'm a little confused.  I thought Axl owned "Guns N' Roses" pre-reunion.  I assumed--without any logical reason--that once Duff and Slash rejoined, GNR became a band.  Now it makes more sense that a lot of promotional stuff is weirdly just Axl, Duff and Slash--not the whole crew.  In other words, maybe Guns N Roses is not just Axl, but is only the three guys.  Everyone else is hired help indefinitely, like Gilby?

True. I didn't travel with the band most of the time or stay in their hotels.

Never have I considered myself GN'R's tour photographer either. I took photos for fun.





/jarmo

True or not, as usual, all these things comes out after she lost the job. It's all good when you still can milk the cow? It's not that you can't find another job if you don't like the workplace, she could have sued them years ago. This jsut prove once again that money buys everything, even your self esteem

I assume so.  Not all that uncommon with legacy bands with personnel turnover.

I recall the way Don Henley put it when asked why he and Glenn Fry would take the lion's share of both the money and credit for The Eagles success. :

"A band is not a democracy.  More like a sports team.  And not everyone gets to touch the ball all the time."

It reads really bad for the band. 

But a lot of filed lawsuits read like that, initially.  The aggrieved party makes it seem like they were treated like total dogshit.  The defendant tends to come back with a version of events where the plaintiff is totally and completely full of crap and lying.

The contract stuff on the photos seems cut and dried.  That's on paper.  The sexual harassment stuff is a bad look in 2023.  It just is.

As to Slash and Duff, I think it all comes down to how they see the Lebeis family.  As a part of the band operation?  Or do they still see them as, "hey Axl, these are YOUR people, not ours."


Just don't know.  Lot of speculation at this point.

they'll buy her. and since there's no sexual agression, she'll agree. Axl is very loyal, and it touches what
he considers his family but he's well placed to know what sexual harassment and abuse is.
that's a conscience case. but I don't see him firing Fernando, unless he's forced by the others.
it would be like devastating to his own family relationship, right?

looks very very bad.

As I have understood it.

Axl has the legal rights to the name Guns N' Roses. That is why he could continue on with the bandname, without the others.

But when it comes to the "company" Guns N' Roses Inc. Slash and Duff has a share of the "stocks" in that company.

I agree  That would be an almost impossible situation to navigate, given the personal history involved.

OK I just read the whole thing on the Rolling Stone article, there is clearly sexual aggression(s)

it changes everything.

Oh yeah.  Not a good read for Fernando here.

Going to be tough to put a good face on some of that.  And "she just misunderstood" is a near impossible sell for trying to force your way into her hotel room at 6 AM and haranguing her for 10 minutes when she is clearly not interested.

Team Brazil going to have to write a check here.  Discovery will not be their friend.

Sorry your name got dragged into this.

This sort of he-said, she-said is best left to the courts. There's a tendency to rush to judgment because of "me too" that at this point has made it all too easy for those with axes to grind and ulterior motives to hijack the legal system. Not saying that's the case here, but it's concerning that this lawsuit wasn't brought until GN'R had apparently launched their own suit against her.

"The lawsuit comes several weeks after Guns N' Roses filed its own lawsuit against Benzova, alleging that she “improperly registered” her photos of the band with the Copyright Office."

Will reserve judgment until more facts are known.

I wonder how the rest of the band will react at that...
Richard was in a relationship with her at some point right?

if he didn't already know and just found out...if no action is taken against Fernando...
I wonder what his reaction will be...

plus I don't think Duff & Slash won't look away about something that can tarnish their names, even in an indirect way
there's too much to lose in a time where cancel culture is sometimes out of control

It's not going to sit well with Duff.

A suit of this magnitude would be a waste of time if she didn't support her claims with digital evidence.

Spoken like somebody with an axe to grind...

Do we have any examples of the legal system being "hijacked"?

Not that this is an equal comparison, but the Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping an exotic dancer. They were assumed guilty by the masses, lives ruined. But the whole story was made up, never happened. It was fabricated by the DA. Luckily in the end justice prevailed and the players were vindicated. But their lives were forever changed. In fact, the exotic dancer who was used as a pawn in this case, later killed her boyfriend. So even more lives were ruined as a result. False claims are made. Not saying that’s necessarily the case here, but it does happen.

Spoken with a certain naiveté. The point remains this is a he-said, she-said case that was filed only after GN'R sued Kat. Those are facts. If you can contradict those facts, I'm all ears. The rest will come out with disclosure and eventual court dates and whatever info is made public.

As for your question, hundreds. It's not hard to find examples when the court system (in multiple countries really) is inundated with cases like these. But let's pick one from yesterday (hit the wire yesterday, ruling was earlier this month). Commonwealth v. Krankowski. You can look it up in the PA court system. A waste of a year of court resources because someone had an axe to grind and made a bogus allegation of child abuse. The fact they were eventually charged is in itself a rarity.

Or, you know, historically, Eleanor Williams, The Central Park 5 case, Jennifer Gries, Renee Skoglund, the Saifullah Khan case, the Matt Araiza case — but I'm not going to get drawn into a game of "well that's just a few cases" and have to keep citing examples. Do your homework. Having spoken to people in law enforcement directly (because my job sometimes involves dealing with production orders/subpoenas), there's a lot of this stuff going on. Police no longer investigate, they just take statements, do the appropriate paperwork, and let the court system sort it out. I've heard some serious horror stories from attorneys too. Your locale may be different, but our court system is backlogged.

Guys don't be naive... Women these days are playing with all of this stuff of sexual harassment and so on. I mean, again, it happened allegedely in 2016 and she sued gnr after they her job was over...Cmon now... I mean, it's very easy to made up stuff nowadays and being convicted in any case, or forced to settle things even when you're not guilty. True or not, she used the sexual harrasment to strengthen the accusation in order to have the money for her job... She didn't sue fernando, is more of a collateral blackmail to play the victim role, being bullied in every possibile way. I didn't read anywhere she sued fernando in those terms.Maybe she will. Until then to me it's just bs.

so even among GNR fans there's some people to take sexual assaulters side.
a reminder, false allegations is around 5% .

95% of the time, it's true.

maybe it's time for these people to listen women.

she has to sue Fernando for that. Why bring this up in order to ask for money to gnr? It doesn’t make any sense. It’s not about siding with someone , it’s about common sense. If she sues Fernando, and maybe she already did, it would be another animal. till now, she just asks for money for other reasons for what we know… So Stop reading what you want between the lines. I can even believe they didn’t pay her for some reason (it happened with pitman imagine with a photographer) but I don’t believe in throwing other stuff in in order to make more believable your issues. Imagine you owe me some money and I go ‘ this guy owe me 100 k.. I,ve should have known better when he caressed my little daughter’ . Why should I bring that up in that particular moment instead of punching you when you caressed my little girl? It’s easy math to me. But maybe it’s just me, I don’t know how it works in the us so enlighten me.  : ok:

It’s not about taking sides. And I’m not saying I don’t believe her. I’m just saying everyone should let the legal system play out. If he did what she claims, then he deserves severe punishment. It doesn’t look great for him, but let’s see where it goes.

That's the one thing I couldn't understand about it  The photos are one issue. The, alleged, sexual harassment is something else. Surely they are two individual issues. The photos would be about written contracts, and that's it.

I don’t think anyone is “taking sides” here.  They are simply saying an allegation is not an automatic conviction, although the two have become synonymous at times these days especially on social media.  Also 95% assuming that number is accurate is still not 100% is it?   Let the courts and lawyers do their jobs.

 No, THIS is spoken like “somebody with an axe to grind.”  Do you know this person personally or have any evidence to back up that statement?  Seems like a strange thing to say with such confidence  if you don’t know the person personally, or witnessed any wrongdoing.
 
And again to be clear , some would take what I am saying as “defending “ the accused.  I don’t know him or anyone in this case, I have no idea what happened on the tour.  In reality I am defending due process , I’m a big fan of that one.   

True. I know a guy who lost his career, marriage and home over an allegation that was later recanted. Just cuz someone says something doesn’t make it so. Also, the timing of the lawsuit is a bit suspect. Let the courts sort it out!

Like with all things, it's complicated.  And the article doesn't do a great job of differentiating the details (and maybe that's because they're not really relevant to the article?).

As I understand it, there are 4 different entities in play, here:

There's Guns n Roses, the legal name of the band.

There's Guns n Roses, the limited partnership that has existed, and controlled publishing rights, since the early days of GnR, formed prior to the publishing of AFD.  This is why song credits on AFD are the way they are.

There's Guns n Roses, the actual performing artist/band.

There's Gun n Roses, the publishing entity (controlled by the limited partnership).

The limited partnership is, at this point (I believe) Axl, Slash, and Duff.  They have wider control over who can acutally use the material credited to the publishing entity. That was pretty much it's only function for a VERY long time (post initial break up...and, really, even post Izzy departure). This may have been reformed/reworked with the reunion to control more things (like tour revenue splits, etc), but we haven't seen much evidence of that, at this point.

The publishing entity, as named in AFD, is still Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy, and Adler.  That's who gets the royalties.

The "TM" Guns n Roses, aka the actual legal band name, is owned by Axl.  Now, it's possible this has been renegotiated as part of the reunion, but all we have at this point is the original agreement which granted rights to the name to Axl.

The current band is, as you all know, Axl, Slash, Duff, Richard, Melissa, Dizzy, and Frank.

One thing to keep in mind: Legal filings like this are only from the plantiffs perspective, they are necessarily perjorative to get the case taken up, and they don't give the defendent any chance to respond.  And sometimes....and I'm not saying thats the case here...they're filed specifically to encourage a settlement rather than litigation.  They can be sensentionalistic to get a very specific reaction.  Again, maybe not here, but the way this reads...if I were going to hold up an example of a text book filing designed to prompt settlement...this would be a pretty close to perfect one.

I'm 100% not taking sides.  I'm just presenting BOTH sides.  The truth is: we don't know.

This.

Because 5% is 5%.

And the suit was filed after GnR sued for copyright infringement.

Maybe it all happened exactly the way she said, and she was just going to keep quiet about it until they tried to sue her.

Maybe not.

This is why there is a legal system, and allegations are just that: allegations.  Jumping to judgement does the entire process a disservice.

If the allegations are true, Fernando should be held accountable.

If she reported these actions up the food chain to someone in the band, or in a way they should have been expected to take action ,the band should be held responsible.

If she violated copyrights, she should be held responsible.

But we should all verify that those things actually happened before we start condemning people.

Though honestly, I expect both cases to be settled before they get all that far into the process.  We'll see.

And they're a big issue.

I think there's some problems with her allegations.  I'm no lawyer, but I'm familiar with contract law and, specifically, how contracts/contract law works with independent contractor work and how those contracts can be extended in a defacto manner.

Her showing up to the arena, and being granted special access to the band, is going to be viewed by most arbitrators/judges as a defacto acceptance of an extension of her original contract terms.  In abscence of a contemporaneous written objection, her acceptance of access (and potentially payment), and certainly any travel and accomodation arrangments, are probably enough here to show that she perceived herself to be under contract, still.  If she bought her own ticket(s), and was taking pictures....it's a different story.

In addition, she mentions that she was in a workplace that had no sexual harrassment policy/training/etc. and no HR department.

As an independent contractor, she's not really entitled to ANY of that support or documentation.  Companies CAN provide it, for long term independent contractors (aka WWE does this for their wrestlers), but they are not required to.  The fact they don't provide that material/support can't be used against GnR. Lots and lots of independent contractors, in lots and lots of industries, aren't provided that kind of support and don't have HR department access for the company contracting them.

I'm not a lawyer either but 'I didn't find out I was getting screwed until I started working for other bands' doesn't sound like it's going to fly.  Should have got legal advice before you sign a contract.  I wouldn't have started turning over my work without a contract in place and I sure as hell wouldn't have continued to sign contracts/work for them if what Fernado was doing was creeping me out.  Poor little me my first language isn't English and I trusted him just sounds like an excuse when she should have had lawyers and accountants looking after her business.  Failure to know what the fuck you are doing doesn't mean you get a redo when you fuck up.  Kind of sad she had to learn some of this the hard way.

the only question is why would someone lies about this?

she didn't even pressed charges against Fernando about it as someone pointed out, so there's no money to gain from this, so why lying?
it doesn't make any sense.


PS : and for what I understand Katarina actually sued first but it was dismissed because of some legal mistake, THEN the band sued back, so that argument doesn't work either

I haven't finished reading her filing, but... even though she continued to work without a written contract for long periods, she could argue that the sexual harassment induced her to accept the terms without changes for fear of losing the work.  Spitballing here.

Again, just as devil's advocate:

To elicit a settlement.  Because there is a dispute over the contract law, and this is a way to gain an uppper hand (perceived or otherwise) in settlement talks.  Becauase, as many have acknowleded in this discussion, it looks bad.

People lie for a LOT of reasons, money being a primary one.  

I'm not saying she's lying. I'm just offering you an example of why she might, because you asked.

This is why we have independent arbitrators and courts.  To figure out who is telling the truth, based on a ponderance of the evidence.  A lot of what she alleges, she also alleges to have documentation/proof of.  Context of that documentation is going to be important for her case.  

There is a not all that cynical, and completely reasonable, interpretation of these filings that we're seeing a contract dispute and both sides are throwing up as much perjorative "stuff" as they can to make the other side look bad.  That's, unfortunately, not an usual tactic in contract disputes where parties want to induce a settlement, rather than a prolonged litigation.

And again, we're not 100% sure on timelines (and that legal mistake could be telling).  We know GnR objected to her copyright filings, likely at least 90 days prior to their suit being filed.  And she would have been aware of those objections.  The timing is suspect given she's been away from the band since 2022, and most of the allegations were happening 7 years or so ago.  

"Why would she lie?" isn't a bad question.  But it should be accompanied by "Why would she wait so long to come forward", too.  Because both are relevant here. Again, maybe she just decided to let it go, until the legal wrangling started.  Or maybe not.  But the timing of the allegations with the various legal filings is beyond a point where we're talking about coincidence.  

We don't know the answers to any of these questions, yet.  We might not ever.

Man that's exactly the point. It does make sense because she uses everything she can - maybe even something she can't really prove (but we don't know) - to kinda force gnr to settle and pay her, because in this peculiar historical period whatever you say becomes magically true, words count more than facts ( i remind we had an argument on words/facts some years ago talking about racism) so, in order to avoid the big shit show you just pay.

And it's not necessarily a full lie. Imagine you have this friend of yours, maybe a co worker, u both always make  jokes about sex etc etc and have fun about it. Someday u  send her some explicit content maybe recalling what she said that day and she answer you with some smiling emoticon. Ok? After a couple of years she's mad at you for whatever other reason, she wants revenge, and she shows that message to people, telling it was harrasment. People who have to judge her claims don't know the context so it's really easy for her to push you into a corner. You're fucked.

As an employee? Yes.

As an independent contractor? Hard to make that case because there's no power dynamic.  The contract is a mutually agreed upon thing, even if in a defacto manner (and maybe especially then, because there's literally no consequence for "breaking" the extended contract since the defacto extension isn't specifically defined...you can literally just say "bye, I'm done" and walk away at any time. Just stop accessing the benefits and compensation).  And if she walks away, at any time, nothing precludes her from finding work in other places. As an independent contractor, nothing guarentees you work from a specific entity, even if you had a past contract with them.  The fact she left in 2022 and, indeed, did find other work, perpetuates that assumption.

I think that's largely my point here, and you make it very well.

We lack the context necessary to pass any judgement: true or false, guilty or innocent.

Automatically assuming she's telling the truth or assuming she's lying is unfair.  She deserves to be heard.  And she deserves her day in court.

If someone(s) is/deemed to have done something wrong, they should be held accountable.

Everyone deserves to have their say.

We have one person's side of the story, and that's it.  Without context or full information.

using everything you can as leverage to win a legal action is justified, bringing the sexual harrasment
to generate press articles too, it doesn't mean you're lying. again, there's no reason why she would
lie about these things, as the large majority of women.

about something else, but given the context I can't help but draw a parallel, does anyone have any news about Melissa?

You can't help but connect her having pneumonia to a lawsuit by a different person?  ???




/jarmo

Yeah, some of these comments are depressing.

Finally got through reading the filing (270+ pages).  There's no way Guns N' Roses the company (Axl, Duff and Slash) are not settling.  If I am one of those three or their attorneys, "How much do you want to make this go away.  And here's an NDA."  Best case, they might be able to get the judge to dismiss GNR as a party to the case.  Might be tough to do since Lebeis is the manager and represents GNR the interests of GNR the company.

Kat's (the photog) bulk of her complaint is Fernando using her photos and not appropriately crediting her and not paying her per photo use agreements/contracts, during which many extended periods of work were not governed by written contracts.  This strikes me as amazingly dumb of Fernando, if the allegations are true.  I assume that the management team has obscene amounts of money to pay to license photograph use.  I've never managed a band, but thinking about this as a juror, it seems like a non-issue to re-use the previously used contracts and cut the photog checks when you want to use photos. 

The remaining part of the suit is the gross stuff--if true--about Fernando telling Kat he "loves" her and aggressively flirting with, along with a few instances of physical kissing and touching. 

As a fan of the musicians in the band, I'm glad none of them are alleged to have known about any of this stuff.  I know they are not saints and some may very well be huge assholes.  Hopefully justice is served--whatever that ends up being.

On social media there are many posts by her liked by Susan, Frank recently so seems like they have not cut ties with her completely

The folk at Stanford will be surprised to learn that so many of their law professors hang out on a gnr forum in their spare time.

Kat is not just "a different person" even if I understand in these particular times everyone in GNR camp would prefer to forget her.

didn't know about the pneumonia, the only "news" I've read about her was her tambourine injury thanks for the update, I hope she gets better soon  :love:

 :hihi:

Internet and its specialists

They are two different persons. Just like you and I are.

Yes, hope she's getting better.



/jarmo

Hahaha. I was about to say something similar. As someone who is very familiar with contracts, lawsuits, settlements, etc., I'm just shaking my head at some of these comments. GNR hasn't even filed its "Answer" yet.

Certain people have already made up their minds about this, and the response from the other side probably won't matter to them.




/jarmo

Have to admit I have a pretty closed mind when it comes to lawyer talk.   :hihi:  It's not their job to give you all the story or both sides.  It's their job to make the other side look bad.  I was always told to only answer yes or no when on the stand.  Don't offer expalinations.  It's the other lawyer's job to get the explaination by asking more yes and no questions.   :hihi:  And sometimes the other lawyer doesn't feel the correct point is not the point they want to make so some shit goes on record as incorrect.

I only skimmed the suit (and spotted all the errors in typing  :hihi:).  But was she asking for punative damage against Frenando for sexual harrassment or is that only there to show how she was mislead and mistreated?  The statement from Beta could be totally out of context and have nothing to do with sexual harrassment.  The sexual harrassment may never come up if Kat can't win on the photo stuff.  Either way, Fernando has been labeled.  He doesn't get a real chance to represent his interest?  He's represented only by the band's lawyers and the band's interest?

As they told us in sexual harrassment in the work place training, women who speak up are osterized by the rest of the employees when they do.  I'm thinking a weird thing to say when you're trying to convince everybody they are protected, this isn't right and action will be taken.  But the truth is, you're getting screwed in more ways then one.

I’ve been an independent contractor to some degree for my whole working life and solely an independent contractor since 2013. All of this being in photography and cinematography. To say there is no power dynamic is insane. You’re at the mercy of the money to a huge degree, completely relying on the potential reputation that your employer saddles you with when looking for further gigs, and extremely vulnerable since there’s no one in your corner, no benefits, etc…, so there can be a heavy feeling of not wanting to rock the boat too much.

And I say that as a man with a degree of freedom to throw a bit of my weight and experience around in an effort to be heard with out being labeled difficult. I can just be assertive and confident in my abilities.   

Sure, contracts can be great for laying out responsibilities and pay, but just because you’re “independent” doesn’t mean you’re still not dependent, and there are employers who can absolutely abuse that weakness.

That said, I agree with the perspective that these things should be handled in a courtroom because there’s always stories and evidence we don’t catch from our articles and message boards, but to think she could’ve walked at any time… you might as well blame it all on how she was dressed.

I'd say it's fair to treat any claim with scepticism as long as you're willing to listen to all evidence presented. Anyone instantly saying she's lying or he's a scumbag based on an initial claim before any response is filed/issued doesn't come across as credible in the slightest, especially when we're 18 months removed from a lawsuit which ruled abuse claims that were believed almost without question for 8 years were fabricated.

Regarding the suit itself it seems there's already one aspect of it which is deliberately misleading at best. That being the inference that Jarmo was an official photographer who was treated more favourably than Kat.

When you know one aspect of a claim is false then it would be understandable to be more sceptical of the rest of it, but still it's worth waiting for responses and evidence to be presented before you cement a position on anything.

I wouldn't worry about a position.  If I was the judge, I'd be tapping my foot, pissed off these people are wasting my time.  There's rules around this stuff, fucking follow them.  Get your ass into a conference room and settle this.  Shoot Fernando a look that says, I better not see you in my court room again.  I think they can work it out.

I love how Jarmo has been reduced to a single name.  He's like Cher, Madonna.   :hihi:

Or Prince!  :D




/jarmo

There ya go, I couldn't come up with a single guy name.   :hihi:

I'm not picking on you... just curious what is misleading about the allegation.  Kat's filing only mentions Jarmo once:

1122. ... another photographer, named Jarmo, a male Finnish photographer who also
worked with GNR/GUNDAM/TEAM BRAZIL was not treated in the same regard
as Benzova and was allowed credit for his photographs.

I'm not a photographer. I have taken photos as a hobby for years.

Comparing an official tour photographer to me is a bit.... Odd (?).



Plenty of other fans have taken photos of the shows as well.




/jarmo

Sure.

But the onus on her would be to prove that there is financial damages incurred by walking out on a defacto extended contract.

If she's under a signed agreement, much of what you say is true.  But operating under a defacto extension removes a lot of the power dynamic.  She can argue she was afraid they would black ball her or tarnish her reputation, but she'd need to provide actual evidence of it, either in her case or in direct, related, cases.  Because she continued to operate as if she was under contract without a signed agreement, she would have to provide basis for the thought that, if she walked away (as was her right), there would be consequences.  As soon as she is operating under a defacto extension, she has some duty to mitigate issues that directly arise in terms of damages (including loss of income) because she has literally put herself in a situtation where loss of income is assumed imminent (because, just like she can walk away, so can the other party, at any time for any reason...or no reason at all).

In short, as an independent contractor, you've essentially given up a LOT of protections and rights operating this way. 


Sure. Regardless of sex/gender.  But more importantly, the signed contract, with terms, provides expectations and protections to both parties.  Once that expires, you can continue to operate under the parameters of that deal in a defacto nature, but you lose the wider umbrella of protections, without a signed extension.

As the independant contractor, you have the responsibility to act in your best interests and assume a duty to mitigate.  That duty becomes even larger in scope when you extend in a defacto manner. 

And while it's true that the person contracting you (who aren't actually employers...it's a fine point, but one worth making...they are contracting for your services and so aren't required to provide the same benefits to you they would an employee) can absolutely abuse that contract and your status, you have to prove some sort of damage occurred.  That becomes infinitely wore difficult when you are operating without a signed extension.  Because the minute damages start to accrue, legally, the expectation would be that you walk away. 

If you're under the initial contract, and within the terms period, you have to prove breach before you can walk away.  And it has to be pretty clear breach.  So you duty to mitigate is different, since you have to err on the side of the contract, and not breaching it yourself.  Once you are under a defacto extension, all that goes away.  As soon as you THINK the other party is in breach, or you are incurring damages, you have an out.  You don't need legal justification.  The justification is already there.....the lack of signed agreement with new duration of terms.

She's continued working in the industry after they let her go.  And by the looks of things, pretty immediately. Yeah?

So...what were the damages here?

She's not asking for punative, it doesn't look like.  She's laying out reasoning for why she should be allowed to keep the copyrights on her photos.


Not even a little bit.

If she was sexually harrassed, the person who engaged in that behavior should be held accountable for it.  And anyone/any entity that knowlingly accepted that behavior should be, too. And she should pursue them for whatever damages she can.

But that doesn't absolve her case, instantly, from having issues.  And the things she talked about being entitled to, given her status as an independant contractor opperating under a defacto extension, don't change based on her gender.  Her behavior is contrary to her claims. Nothing to do with how she dressed. Nothing to do with a "she deserved it" (because she didn't) mentality.  It's about the way she acted in her professional capacity, what she did, and how she was compensated for it. She'll need documentation, context, and evidence to explain why she behaved the way she did.  It's not impossible to do.  But its not cut and dried, either.  And treating those who point these questions out as some sort of sexist monsters is both false and hyperbolic.

She is going to have to explain to a court why she didn't just walk away.  In excrutiating detail.  Because while you say "she couldn't"...the obvious truth is she very well could have.  She had no signed contract to break.  Legally, nothing compelled her to continue to operate under that contracts terms.

She COULD have walked.  And because she didn't, any court is going to first ask why.  As I said, maybe she had good reasons.  But they're not in evidence in the filing, which is odd, since that's something you would think they would address out front, since it's such an obvious gap.  They didn't.

100% this.

We. Don't. Know.

She should have her say.  Everyone should listen to her, and take her claims seriously. 

And then....everyone else should have their say in defending themselves.

The courts will decide who is right and who isn't, here.


Maybe Kat didn't know jarmos status.  As an independant contractor, that's possible.  She saw his taking pics and just assumed.

Or maybe her representation misunderstood jarmos status, as Kat described it, and did the same.

Or maybe it's an outright fabrication to try to increase standing.

All we know is: It's not true.  Straight from the horse's (sorry jarmo...) mouth.

Kat was, at one point, under signed contract to take photos that, as part of the terms, became the property of GnR.  She was compensated specifically for this.  And when the contract ended, continued to take access and compensation, which would indicate she was operating under the terms of the expired contract, in a defacto manner.  This means the photos taken by Kat, given special access and compensation, would be understood to belong to GnR.

jarmo isn't under contract to take photos (and, as far as we know, never has been....of, if he has, had that contract expire and expressly lapse).  He has no signed agreement which assigns copyright of his photos to GnR.  They see him taking photos as the shows, while he is performing any other duties associated with his actual job. They don't stop him, or ask him to stop, or ask him to assign the copyrights of the photos to them.  This allows him to keep the copyrights to the photos, as it would any person backstage, allowed to take pictures.

That's not evidence of better treatment.  One person was contracted to perform a specific job function, with specific enumerations as to who that work product belonged to.

The other person is taking personal pictures between job duties with no provision for how those photos are handled or assigned ownership.

If you contract a baker to work for you at your house, and specifically say all cakes they bake while at your house are yours....

...and your gardener bakes a cake using your kitchen (with your knowledge and permission)....

...who does the cake your gardner bakes belong to?

He's not an official photographer which we know for a fact, and the only reason that he's mentioned in the filing is to make it seem like there was a male official photographer who was receiving preferential treatment.

What part of that isn't misleading?

Thanks for explaining it.  : ok:



Also, don't forget, one person's funny animated GIF, can be another person's source of offense.
https://imgur.com/gallery/ajAsG7o





/jarmo

IDK if this was really the gif that was sent or whatever.....but this legit reminds me of the last time I went through TSA security.

is there any official answer from GNR?

It's not misleading if I don't know anything about Jarmo--other than he posts a lot on these forums.  Now that I know who Jarmo is it sounds misleading (intentionally or unintentionally).  : ok:

She makes reference to the War Room, gnr group. If she knows that, then she'll know who Jarmo is. It does look like intention to mislead the court.

Kats interview with Glam magazine implies she had savings to dip into during covid, so she had the means to walk away from GNR, and she talks about returning to gnr after covid as a happy thing, not something you would say if something bad was happening.

Based on what Pilferk said who is always right, it's going to hinge on communications between her and Fernando, and it has yo be beyond all reasonable doubt.

I hope it was a pleasant experience!




No.




/jarmo

ok thanks for the info Jarmo.


I just read Axl is sued for sexual assault (1989) in new lawsuit

He is.  The complainant filed a week before the window to sue closed. New York temporarily waived the statute of limitations for sexual abuse for civil cases. That waiver period is about to end.

The claims are decades old and she wrote a book that included them years ago. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Well there's always Boris...

How much does she want?  Anything else?

I think if he knows he did that, for his own forgivness, he should write that check.  Can't change the past but you can say you did all you could to atone for it.  It's all you can do.  Everybody makes mistakes.

Oh, man, I took pics at 30 shows. I wanna call myself tour photographer too. Don't ruin that.  ;)




 :rofl: :rofl: That's the actual gif?? He sent it to you too? Are you gonna sue him as well?  ;)
And where is the penis?? That's hearsay and assumptions on part of the lawyer.

Hahahaha