PatrickS77

Just now, allwaystired said:

I haven't a clue what you're on about to be honest.

No need to explain though as I'm not especially interested either! 

Like I said, playing dumb doesn't suit you... then again, maybe it does.

1 hour ago, D4NNY said:

Axl caught out in the wild with a genuine smile! It’s a miracle 🥲

Yeah. And at a damn F1 race of all places... one of the dullest things around.

1 hour ago, allwaystired said:

Years? This only happened last week. 

Don't play dumb now. I'm obviously not talking about Kat. 

23 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Well, regardless, I think your obsession with this 'woman must be lying' angle is getting a bit weird now and you should probably take some time away from it all. For your own health as much as anything. It's starting to look very bizarre. 

 

Obsession??   Who's obsessed? You're the one beating the dead horse since years. So stop projecting.

9 minutes ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

She's not just saying stuff, she has filed a lawsuit, and reading that lawsuit it seems like she can back lots of that stuff up. But yea, go ahead with discrediting her as just another woman wanting money.

Yeah, we will see how much of what he supposedly said or did she really can back up. Her wanting sole ownership of photos GNR paid to produce and the fact she's suing after they fired her/let her go, is a red flag to me. Period. Don't care what you all think.

9 hours ago, Nintari said:

I still err on the side of the woman... but after Depp vs. Herd, it's no longer automatic.

Just wow. Yeah, fuck any guy, who has his life ruined by some scorned woman with false allegations. It's not like that never happened before. No error should be made, period.

4 hours ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

It's always so easy to judge and give great advice as a man sitting behind his phone/computer. Don't be so ignorant. There's no need to trash her and defend Fernando. 

Yeah. Just as easy as to blindly believe what she says, because you don't like the guy she says things about. See, that goes both ways.

7 hours ago, Arnuld said:

Dude Fuck off. Someone asked if anyone had met Fernando. I just told my experience. I didn’t say whether he was good or bad I just told exactly what happened. I didn’t expect anything from anyone. 

Yeah. And I asked you what the point of your post was, as your post really offered nothing in regards to the rather rethorical question of the poster before. The defensiveness and aggressiveness in here really is getting ridiculous.

11 hours ago, Arnuld said:

I met him in Vegas in 2011. I tried to be cordial and say what’s up. He was staying my floor a few rooms down from me so it was just me and him in the hallway. He kind of just brushed me off. I was being pretty chill because you know whatever. He said he would see me later at the party but I had no idea WTF he was talking about. 

And your point is? Have you met and dealt with him before?? If not, you're a stranger to him. What did you expect? That he rolls out the red carpet for you, because you're staying at the same hotel? At least he assumed he would see you at the party. Your fault you didn't ask what party.

3 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

Clear she wants money not justice. I think I squashed that point yesterday. 

I don't hate Fernando, and I'd prefer if it wasn't true that he was sexually exploitive. I don't respect his ability to run a band, that doesn't mean I jump for joy he's in legal trouble or that his marriage could fall apart because he was misbehaving or that he could potentially be losing his job (whether I like his ability or not, I don't wish anybody out of work). I do think he's a smarmy douche, but I think most would agree with that.

And yes, I'm well aware that the allegations are from Kats side, which are currently not proven to be fact. Which is included in my previous response. 

Why do aggressive, why not? I can't stand your attitude/opinion on the subject tbh. "They discovered her she's a nobody, they don't owe her anything, basically a paparazzi, if she was being mistreated she should have quit' I mean each one of those is worse than the next.

Not really. Sexual harassment is a crime, no? She could report him to the police, no? 

So? Again. That's your problem. There is no lie in any of it. I had a professional photographer, who was shooting Janet Jackson and Michael Jackson amongst others, tell me that his work as a tourphotographer wasn't artisticly fullfilling to him and that he felt like a paparazzi doing it. So don't get mad at me, if I feel the same.

1 hour ago, Kickingthehabit said:

No photographer is going to renounce all credit in lieu of payment. How the fuck is she going to get her name out there??

"Great pic, Axl. Who took it?"
"Nobody."

Yeah right.

Is it more believable that Kat wanted to remain an unnamed enigma in the shadows, or that she wanted her name credited on photos that were used?

Credit is one thing. Them having to pay her and ask her for permission everytime they want to use a photo they paid her and granted the right and flown in to make, is another.

29 minutes ago, KURT19 said:

In my not-so-humble opinion, I side with Kat because no way she made this up.  I believe the details listed in the suit.

Can’t wait to see how this plays out.

Yeah. Most likely part of it is true. To what extent or how much is twisted remains to be seen. 

18 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

Nope, you actually know sweet fuck all about anything to do with her contract, the only available info is what's in the legal document anything else is made up BS. I love how you always try and be the expert in the room though😉

Plenty of photographers get flown around the world for free and keep their intellectual property. What are you basing your BS on? Other than "I'm right because I know I'm right all the time". In the legal documents filed, the claim is Fernando acknowledged that she was owed money and that her intellectual property would be acknowledged. You can't just cherry pick info to suit your argument Pat, although I'm aware you wouldn't have an argument if you didn't 😄

And let's not forget the bigger case of sexual misconduct. Explain that away too if you want. Gnr's statement didn't say a word about it, probably on advice from lawyers... I wonder why🤔

And I'm not totally saying Fernando is guilty and gnr have shafted Kat out anything, it is possible she's owed nothing and has made up accusations... Possible, but until I see a single thing that suggests otherwise her side looks a whole lot more likely. She worked with a lot of other bands after gnr and seems to have no issues, now is a funny time to throw it all away if there's no evidence to back things up.

Oh, I know fuck all? Really?? Why so aggressive? I know what the GNR suit claims is stated in the contract. I doubt they were lying. They will be able to produce that contract that was signed by Kat. 

Never ever have I claimed to be an expert. It's your problem if you have personal animosity against what I'm saying.

Yes. For 1 show. Big name photographers like Ross Halfin. Not no names, whom they have discovered and brought into the biz, for  “364 shows or 30 ‘legs’”.
And you're aware that the legal documents claiming that Fernando acknowledged anything, is coming from Kat's side??

And really, what argument do you have, other than, like anyone here, disliking Fernando and thus being more inclined to rather believe everything negative about him that Kat says? I'm not saying that Fernando didn't do these things, but to me it's clear she wants money and not justice (for being sexually harrassed) and to me it's more likely that this is a woman scorned, who's throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks and get the most out of it. And the "now" is after she was let go by the band, so really, not such a funny time. Again, if she left on her own, I'd be more inclined to believe her.

1 minute ago, DeNfr said:

congratulations, you just discover intellectual property

No. I discovered her trying to have her cake and eating it too. Either she pays her own shit, travelling around the world shooting them and keeps the ownership of the photos or she has them pay everything, including her work and the photos belong to GNR. What would GNR get out of shipping her and paying her to travel around the world, when at the end of the day the work they paid her to do is owned by her and they have to beg and pay her again to be able do something with it?? That's insanity. And not what was stated in their initial contract. They don't even let local reporters take pictures at their shows. So why would she or anyone think they grant her that?

12 minutes ago, RnRHOFGNR said:

You have no idea how much she was paid.  Since she was living this life of luxury as you say perhaps this was considred the payment but since there was no written agreement then nobody knows.

It was stated she was paid well for her services.

32 minutes ago, Top-Hatted One said:

That’s right. So why would the 2 women who have nothing to go with gnr be the ones to unfollow Kat?

Well, one reason could be that they don't believe her allegations and side with Fernando.

"She’s also seeking a court order “declaring her the sole owner” of all the photographs she took since 2010 when she wasn’t working under a written contract with GnR."

Wow. How sick is that? First she gets paid to do the work, travels the world in luxury, many times over, while fans get fleeced left and right (and basically finance the whole thing) and in the end she claims sole ownership of the photos she was paid to do?!?

6 minutes ago, adamsapple said:

No, it's not. Your primary source of income is photography you will be taxed and insured as "artist". You play chess for a living tournaments and all, tax and insurance will file you under "athlete". Whether or not that makes any sense to you might be debatable, but the reality of that being legal facts is not.

And yet we could argue about that. But we won't, because it's not the point.

4 minutes ago, G O A T said:

Ownership and copyright are two different things. Yes a client usually owns the work which means he or she is allowed to use it within whatever agreement there is, but an artist still owns the copyright to protect his work so it's not being used commercially for other purposes, which is usually reduplicating and sold. NEVER EVER under any circumstances should you EVER sign away the copyright. That's like ART 101 rule number one us artists usually learn the hard way.

Yeah. Well, the same absurdness if said thing only exists because somebody ordered it, paid for it and granted the right for it exist.

36 minutes ago, invisible_rose said:

Very true. And I think it's also true of the other side - so many people want this to be true because of their view, and distaste, of Fernando. Hopefully a fair resolution will be achieved for the sake of both parties.

Exactly. Out of likes.

38 minutes ago, adamsapple said:

Photography is an art form as much is chess is a sport.

That's debatable. One and the other. Also there are different kinds of photography.

38 minutes ago, invisible_rose said:

Painting is learned skill, but that is art. 

Playing an instrument in a learned skill, but that is art.

A photographer produces something that they have an eye to capture, using their developed skill set. This is entirely true of other media, such as paintings, music etc.

Also debatable, but besides the point.

20 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

Wow your take is so subtle. But essentially you're saying she's out for money, is a no talent and should have quit if the allegations are true.

Great take👍🏻

Yes. Obviously she wants money. The only reason for a civil suit. Otherwise she would have went to authorities.

16 minutes ago, Voodoochild said:

Yeah, your iPhone pictures are the same thing as professional pictures. Sure.

Nope. I haven't learned the skill. Also I resent the assumption that I have an iPhone.

24 minutes ago, adamsapple said:

 

Copyright applies to intellectual property, which can not be transmitted in any shape or form by the very nature of intellectual property.

Licensing applies to the use of an end product of intellectual property, i.e. a picture, a song, a poem etc.

Anyone who ever actually dealt with licensing of intellectual property will tell you the same.

People tend to mix up a "service" of say a plumber with the "art" of a photographer. Both are contractors, both provide a service of some sort. But it's not the same thing. You hire ten plumbers and get more or less the same result. You hire ten photographers and get ten entirely different results. Why? Because a photographer aside from the "service" of taking a picture also provides the "art" of intellectual property - which can not be replicated exactly the same way by anyone ever. It's unique.

 

 

Art? What art? They are nothing more than paparazzi, shooting whatever is done in front of them. Concert photography is no art, it's a learned skill.

27 minutes ago, Voodoochild said:

Also, why do you have the need to disbelief her claims so strongly? I mean, ok if you don't think her copyright claims are fair, but the sexual harassment isn't something easy for her, it's a very serious accusation. And I'm sure she's aware that this does have consequences to her career, as there is an obvious trend of blaming the victim.  

Because to me it seems like something to be thrown in to have more of a case. To make it more embarrasing and to hopefully make them want to settle, before there is bad press. Like I said, somebody saying I love you can be a great thing or it can be turned into a bad thing, depending on what you want out of it. And to make sexual advances to someone who knows your wife.... seems dumb to me. Also there usually never is any proof either way and in this day and age people are quick to believe the "victim". People are almost compelled to believe the "victim", no questions asked. If you do, you're a "bad" person.

4 minutes ago, ©GnrPersia said:

I agree her fame is because of GNR. Actually in an interview she said that Axl personally was interested in her work while she did a freelance job or something and then invited her to be the tour photographer.

But, I know you also agree that just because of the above mentioned, she shouldn't be subject to sexual harassment by the manager. She didn't sign up for that right?

Of course not, that's why I wonder, why she didn't leave? And as for the credits, without GNR, no one would know her and as Fernando supposedly said, everyone knows it's her who does the pics, maybe a bit more lenience to her discoverers would be/have been in order. Or to just cut ties and work for someone else, if both is unacceptable. Though I'd say sexual harassment worthy of a lawsuit would be more than reason to leave on that alone.

6 minutes ago, Skamos66 said:

"Fernandon't" is fucking hilarious 🤣

Is that what Kat said to him?

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

@Lioposted the relevant section.

So in your mind she should have sued them while still working for them and not after she had been terminated? I don't think it is exactly uncommon that people hang on in a job they don't like, especially if she thought the best way to sort out the infringement issue was while being employed, rather than after having left.

 

Yeah. That's what you do when you supposedly get sexually harassed and (in your mind) get professionally disrespected and maybe cheated out of money. You don't help your case and believability hanging on until you don't get paid anymore. Do you endure all that, especially the sexual harassment, just because you get paid? When you're supposedly freelancing and could look for work somewhere else.

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Why do you not think she left exactly because of the infringement and sexual harassment reasons?

Didn't it say in the papers she wasn't asked back?