Jump to content

PatrickS77

Members
  • Posts

    2,955
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by PatrickS77

  1. 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.

    • Like 1
  2. 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. 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.

  4. 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.

    • Like 1
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. "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?!?

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

    • Like 1
    • ABSUЯD 2
  11. 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.

  12. 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? ;)

    • Like 1
  13. 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.

  14. 7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

    If we are to trust the lawsuit, she did speak up numerous times, trying to get Fernando and Team Brazil to change their ways and trying to communicate with the band as well. Obviously, she wasn't going to sue them while still working for them, so naturally that happened after she left the job.

    And yet, there supposdly was sexual harrassment and her copyrights weren't honored and yet she willingly came back, year after year, after year, until they didn't ask her back. I would have way more respect for her story, if she would have left due to above reasons. The way it is, it's all fishy.

  15. 5 minutes ago, adamsapple said:

    I don't mean this as an insult, but you have no idea how licensing works. By your logic you can go to a show and record a band to put out a bootleg you then make money off (getting paid by YouTube or streaming services, selling physical copies etc.) because with buying a ticket you already paid the band to play the music for you and now you own the music and can do whatever you want with it, right? Wrong! You paid for two hours of their service. If you want to put that service to further commercial use you might have to speak to the band management (no pun intended) and ask for licensing. This is how it works.

     

    Yeah. You better not, because you totally misrepresented what I said, so don't assume I know nothing about licensing, because you managed to come up with an idiotic (and false) comparison. Where did I say that? I bought entertainment from them. And that's it. No rights. No nothing. Technically I'm not even allowed to take pictures or videos. But GNR bought Benzova's service to produce photos for them (and of them) and thus should own the work, because they paid for it and they granted Benzova the right to take pictures. If I hire a plumber to deliver and install a toilet, the toilet also is mine and I don't have to pay the plumber whenever I let a guest take a dump and charge them for it.

    • Like 1
  16. On 11/14/2023 at 10:27 PM, IzzysMissy said:

    The no contracts/freelancer thing is VERY MUCH an American thing to avoid giving get benefits. Spot on comment though… she’d never throw these  accusations out without proof, and lawyers would be hesitant to take this on considering it’s such a huge band. Well, good lawyers at least… as someone said earlier, here we thought it would all be boring post tour.. nope, Fernando had to go ahead and fuck with the legacy.

    How do you really prove it though? How do you disprove it happened. Other than the credits thing, it's he said/she said.

  17. 1 minute ago, adamsapple said:

    When a photographer is hired/contracted, he or she is paid for their services like availability, commitment, taking pictures (usually with their own gear and sometimes even staff), post production of those pictures, providing the contractor with pictures etc.

    Copyright itself can not be sold, bought, rented, licensed or whatever - it remains with the photographer forever. The photographer usually licenses their work for a limited amount of time and space/use to the contractor. The contractor then has the legal right to use the work of the photographer according the license that was agreed on.

    The copyright claim is not bullshit, it's pretty serious actually. Here's why: If they used her work in commercial context without crediting her or even altered her work for commercial use without her agreement and/or no credit given to the photographer, they basically claimed/implied her work not to be hers and in worst case to be their own work, which is a severe breach of copyright, resulting in significant financial damages for the photographer at the time and later on.

    Example: Let's say some merch dude, promoter or a record company wants to license a picture Kat made to put it on a t-shirt, a poster, a CD cover or a magazine. They contact management to get proper licensing for the picture and Fernando then licenses the picture to them, not crediting the photographer despite better knowledge, claiming ownership of the work for himself despite better knowledge, negotiating prices and eventually taking the money fully aware it's not a legal thing to do. This would leave civil law right there as such practices are usually considered a criminal offenses named theft and fraud.

    Yeah, and that is total bullshit, giving extra priviledges to photographers. They get paid to do the work and then on top of the work they already got paid for, get to make even more money for the work they've already ben paid for. Total bullshit. If a company pays you to do work, the work should be owned by the company. Period. And it usually is. Unless you're a photographer. And it's extra absurd, considering that the work consists of taking pics of Axl, Slash and Duff performing on stage. The very people who paid her to do so. She wouldn't have anything to photograph, if they weren't on stage performing. And really, I don't care what the law is. It is bullshit.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...