GNR Sued

[kunzerd]

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.

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’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.

[Alan]

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.

[cineater]

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.   

[jarmo]

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

Or Prince! 




/jarmo

[cineater]

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

Or Prince! 




/jarmo

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

[ItsoEezee]

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.

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.

[jarmo]

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.

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

[pilferk]

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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.

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?

[Alan]

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.

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.

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?

[jarmo]

Thanks for explaining it. 



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





/jarmo

[pilferk]

Thanks for explaining it. 



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.

[DeN]

is there any official answer from GNR?

[ItsoEezee]

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.

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.

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?

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). 

[Mysteron]

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.

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.

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?

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). 

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.

[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.

I hope it was a pleasant experience!

is there any official answer from GNR?

No.




/jarmo

[DeN]

ok thanks for the info Jarmo.


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

[kyrie]

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.

[The Wight Gunner]

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

Or Prince!  




/jarmo

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

Well there's always Boris...