justynius

All of that can (and should) be negotiated and documented in a good contract, it doesn't require ownership. Also, when I criticize the arrangements related to these photographs, it doesn't just fall on Fernando - Kat was the one signing the contracts and working under the informal arrangements. Not sure if she was inexperienced on the business side or agreeing to shit out of concern that the gig would go to someone else, but the conditions described in the lawsuit are substandard to say the least. It is unusual to not be better protected up front. The pornography / political propaganda were just extreme examples of what a photographer may not like, wasn't implying GN'R specifically might want to do that. Most professional photographers view their work as "art" and it is a big deal to them for their photographs to not be disparaged in that way. You are correct that GN'R would also want to negotiate how Kat would be allowed to use the images, if at all, that would/should absolutely be in precise detail in the contract.

It seems most of this was done very unprofessionally so who knows what the actual contractual language says, but the photographer would typically retain ownership/copyright to the work and the employer would be granted authorization for specific uses. So, for example, GN'R could use the photographs for their website or advertisements but they could not use them in a pornography video or political propaganda. Either way, ownership of the photographs is inconsequential to GN'R outside of the distribution rights which could be controlled simply with a well written contract. In my view, it would be foolish to go to battle over these petty photography issues and still lose the war due to the mountains of evidence on the more serious harassment allegations.

Consent does not require direct verbal communication. Her own published words reiterate through multiple events in the night how much she "wanted" Axl and the actions she took to make that happen, then she directly specifies she was okay with what happened because she was finally getting what she wanted. You're gonna have a very tough time selling that as an unwilling participant. Now she does consistently say in every version of the story that she only wanted sex with Axl and was unquestionably against the prospect of group sex, there is valid evidence she was against that activity. But every version also implies she did not actually participate in the group sex, let alone having been forced to. Even further, if the events described are true then they disbanded that activity specifically in respect to her lack of consent. That is her problem - was she lying in the book, was she lying in the documentary, or is she lying now? It will be challenging enough to prove Axl was even in the room 35 years after the fact. It will be nearly impossible to find evidence that supports her current narrative while not directly leading to "I was okay with this because ... now I was finally getting him."

In the book, she goes out of her way to directly say the sexual activity was welcome. She needs to prove her written description of the events behind that locked door were false. Unless she was lying about the extent of Rikki’s involvement, his testimony only accomplishes the opposite.

Does it really though? Rikki’s testimony can reinforce the events described in the book, a consensual sexual encounter. She needs evidence/testimony that disproves her own words, and I’m not sure that exists. This is the hole she’s dug.

Even if that's true - and I don't see anything in the act implying it is - you'd still need success on the sexual assault allegations, the physical assault wouldn't stand on its own. By her own admission, "Axl slams the door and locks it. The other girl is gone. Rikki’s in the other room." Unless they try claiming the book is false, Rikki can't testify to witnessing a sexual assault.

The language in the NY Adult Survivors Act is pretty specific to sexual misconduct. I would expect statute of limitations to be expired for allegations of physical assault related to the hairpulling. Definitely not a legal expert though, and Rikki's testimony would at least lend credibility to her story. However, as you said, can't see him being very eager to step in this pile of shit, and even if he's served he can probably say with honesty that he doesn't remember an event from 34 years ago.

I was responding to your post claiming there's "not proof it's a lie." That's a higher threshold than they need to meet. The defense does not need to prove the story is a lie, only that her side has failed to provide sufficient evidence it is true. Rough sex in itself is not sexual assault. Her own published words are credible evidence the alleged encounter was consensual. Now you're the one grasping at straws. Below is the full context. What does this change? I’m crying and bleeding. Axl slams the door and locks it. The other girl is gone. Rikki’s in the other room. And I lay there. And he fucked me, anally. And I could handle it because he wasn’t too big. Weirdly enough, I was okay with this. I had wanted to be with him since the minute I’d first laid eyes on him, and now I was getting him. Once he was done he untied me and we fucked around some more. I remember going down on him and sticking my finger in his ass and he really wanted that, he really got off on that. That’s what made him come.

The burden of the lawsuit is to prove it is true. Axl is not suing her for libel, she is suing him for assault. The defense does not need to prove the assault did not occur, only that her side failed to provide sufficient evidence that it did. Inconsistencies are by definition erroneous testimony. If she presents one timeline, then makes a subsequent statement that is not possible to line up with it, one (or both) of those statements must be in error. A good start would be not publishing, direct quote, "Weirdly enough, I was okay with this. I had wanted to be with him since the minute I’d first laid eyes on him, and now I was getting him." It is not baseless speculation, it's a literal fact. She's spent the last twenty years cashing in on this (and other) sexual encounters with celebrities.

It directly says in the lawsuit that there were no written contracts. Unless/until we hear otherwise, there's no reason to suspect this is false. Employment alone does not permit unauthorized/uncredited use, and there would need to be very specific contractual language for her to fully relinquish ownership and especially authorship. Ultimately, the financial value of the photographs is almost certainly insignificant to GN'R; ownership only matters in that it grants them control over distribution. You don't need ownership for that, they can easily reach an agreement over distribution authorization with a valid written agreement. Then Kat needs to comply with those terms or it is them suing her. Work out these petty issues with the photographs and the real dynamite - the harassment allegations - go away.

The problem with that line of thinking is the defense doesn't even really need to prove it is a lie, they just need to show the plaintiff has failed the burden of proving it's *true* - otherwise, anyone can just make up baseless accusations about anyone else. Her published words do more to contradict the allegations than support, and demonstrate a history of trying to turn this into a payday. By her own admission, the other people were outside the room when the supposed 'assault' occurred, so anything they can offer (if they get involved at all) is speculative at best. There's obviously no DNA or police report. Her verbal recollection is the beginning and end of proof for this lawsuit, and when inconsistencies emerge then even that becomes erroneous testimony.

She also waited until after the tour finished so as to not hurt the band, and if the timeline of events is true she endured a lot of shit over several years before finally filing the lawsuit. My gut reading of all this is that she's not out for blood or a payday. I don't think the (amount of) money is that important to her, and the alleged harassment is more of an annoyance than something she would have sued over in itself. GN'R wanted to control how their images were used, and this inadvertedly created a situation where she felt disrespected as an artist - that's what this is about, acknowledging professional photography as a legitimate art form and assigning appropriate credit to the artist. The harassment accusations are the incendiary part of all this, but she really just threw those in there to get them to take this seriously. I think if they show *genuine* remorse for the way the photography was handled and work out a way to acknowledge her work (plus get Fernando to commit to chill the fuck out), she'd be open to having all this go away and even continuing a working partnership. It should be possible to peacefully resolve this without much of a cost to the band, and everything goes to shit if they take this to trial and lose. There are times to go to war, but sometimes there's better outcomes in recognizing the other side has a point and mending fences.

I agree, if there's nothing else besides the he said she said from over 30 years ago and her own published words, then Axl should take this all the way thru trial and make her reimburse his legal fees when she loses. If he settles for even a buck to a case this weak, then it opens the door for him to be the piggy bank for every other woman he's had any kind of interaction with over the years. The Fernando situation is a bit trickier. There appears to be credible evidence, and a lot of it. Unless they can prove it is fake - and we don't know shit, perhaps it is fake - then I think they need to start looking into how they can make this right. Based on what we know so far, I don't see this turning out well and I say that as a (mostly) Team Brazil supporter. Taking down the evidence is their only line of defense; Kat's actions/history and verbal testimony with no hard evidence are absolutely meaningless if they do not adequately address the evidence referenced in the lawsuit.