Kat Benzova sues GNR/Fernando for copyright infringement and sexual harassment

[DoMw94]

1 hour ago, PatrickS77 said:

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.

This has been my experience in the motorsport world too. On a daily basis.

Teams, championships, or agencies (so lets say 'companies') will hire a photographer and that company owns the images. When we credit, we credit Photographer/Team, Photographer/Championship, or Photographer/Agency – so the person taking the picture gets the credit they're due, but the actual owner is clearly identified too. If the photographer has been hired, those that do the hiring tend to be the sole owner, usually. Said company pays the photographer, and the company then either charges for use, or makes them freely available under certain conditions (editorial use, not for financial gain etc.)

While I'm no legal expert, my understanding of this is GN'R thinking the above, Kat thinking differently, and there being no clear paperwork/contract to establish which it is. To me, it is strange that Kat could be on GN'R's payroll and retain sole copyright of work she's done on the band's time. But again, that's where the lack of clear documentation becomes the issue.

But without dismissing the severity of the copyright stuff, it's the harrasment allegations that stick out to me. They're the ones that need to be properly dealt with, and since this is a civil suit (and GN'R's statement doesn't properly acknowledge them), I fear they won't be.

Edited November 16, 2023 by DoMw94

[PatrickS77]

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.

Edited November 16, 2023 by PatrickS77

[PatrickS77]

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.

[Avillart]

28 minutes ago, adamsapple said:

 

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.

 

 

Yes, it's "service" and "product". It's what many people don't understand, legally. I come from a family of lawyers and my sister who used to work in law as well is also a photographer and she'd always lecture me about this difference cause I used to do modeling and we often had debates over who has the rights to photos - the photographer or the (hired) person in the photos, and other questions.  

The intellectual property is a "product" but when you're employed as a photographer/artist/you name it they pay you for your "service". Of course they can also buy the product and there are lots of grey areas and that's why there will always be lawsuits over so-called copyright cases, especially if there's nothing in (professional) writing, and the right lawyer will always find their way around these grey areas to make sure their client gets money out of it.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Avillart
typo

[©GnrPersia]

23 minutes ago, Jw224 said:

People are really desperate to take sides instead of just being okay with not knowing. Going out of your way to paint someone as a money grabber when you know nothing about the situation is very strange. 

True.

Besides I understand the reasons for wishing Fermanager a punishment as he is not a very likable character among fans thanks to his own unprofessionalism and occasional mockery of fans which suggests his abuse of power. So one can imagine if that's his public image, then private might have been worse.

But not sure how taking Fermanager's side can make sense. Innocent till proven guilty is the only reason probably.

At the end of the day, accusing someone of sexual harassment is a very serious allegation. If proven false, it has huge consequences against Kat.

So I believe there was something very valid there, otherwise she wouldn't bring it up.

Edited November 16, 2023 by ©GnrPersia

[adamsapple]

4 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

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.

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

[invisible_rose]

5 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

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.

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.

[invisible_rose]

21 minutes ago, Jw224 said:

People are really desperate to take sides instead of just being okay with not knowing. Going out of your way to paint someone as a money grabber when you know nothing about the situation is very strange. 

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.

[Rovim]

17 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

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.

heh nonsense 

[Tom2112]

26 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

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.

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👍🏻

[Voodoochild]

32 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

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.

Yeah, because historically people ALWAYS doubted the victim. As if the allegation in itself wouldn't be embarrassing enough for the victim, who gets blamed for idiotic things such as "being pretty" or how they dress.  Thankfully, this behavior is changing, because of the alarming quantity of misconduct and harassment cases. 

I'm not sure you read the OP, but it's clearly not just like saying some stuff to Kat, he had physical assaulted her. I will not comment on Fernando not being dumb to try something with somebody who knew his wife because this is such a ridiculous assumption against his well-known dumbness. 

22 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

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.

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

[PatrickS77]

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.

Edited November 16, 2023 by PatrickS77

[PatrickS77]

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.

[Axls_Moustache_Rules]

There's too much smoke here though, you don't make up shit spanning years involving monkey GIFs.

The hotel and dark alley way incidents suggest sexual assault...which should really be considered a crime.

I'm not sure people disliked Nando, for any other reason than just recognising a creep from day one.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Axls_Moustache_Rules

[adamsapple]

15 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

That's debatable. One and the other.

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.

Edited November 16, 2023 by adamsapple

[G O A T]

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.

[PatrickS77]

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.

Edited November 16, 2023 by PatrickS77

[Blackstar]

Just to clarify regarding copyright, it is stated in Kat's lawsuit that she doesn't claim copyright of the photos she took while she worked under a written contract (which explicitly said that GN'R would own all rights, including copyright, "in perpetuity"). She claims copyright of the pictures she took during the long periods she worked without a written contract (and which seem to consist the vast majority of her work for GN'R) with emphasis to 145 photos that she registered with the US Copyright Office after her working relationship with GN'R had ended (I suppose because she has a stronger case with these 145 photos).

GN'R claims that since she agreed upon those stipulations by signing written contracts, it means that they also apply to the periods she worked under an "oral agreement" (because, I guess, "families don't need contracts" - ridiculous).

 

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Blackstar

[G O A T]

12 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

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

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

Nothing absurd about copyright. I've done hundreds of mural commissions over 30 years for the biggest companies on this planet and without the ownership of copyright I would have been constantly f****d in the a** here in NYC. Nothing wrong with Kat wanting to protect her work. I've read the entire lawsuit and there's 145 cases of copyright infringement. GNR unfortunately has a bad track record when it comes to hiring photographers and other media companies over the years. Several cases of both companies and individuals over the years saying they didn't get paid.

I'm glad Kat is standing up for her work. If she's not standing up for her own work, who will? Go Kat!

Edited November 16, 2023 by G O A T

[kanecrescente]

1 hour ago, Jw224 said:

People are really desperate to take sides instead of just being okay with not knowing. Going out of your way to paint someone as a money grabber when you know nothing about the situation is very strange. 

We've known that about The Lebeis Family for the longest of times 

[Gunnerfan_rus]

10 minutes ago, G O A T said:

I'm glad Kat is standing up for her work. If she's not standing up for her own work, who will? Go Kat!

That's true but you need to fix your username a little bit now! 😅

Edited November 16, 2023 by Gunnerfan_rus

[BillConnor_1982]

1 hour ago, PatrickS77 said:

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.

Hi Fernando 

[gnfnr2k]

1 hour ago, PatrickS77 said:

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.

They go hand in  hand.

Since she was not giving into Fernando's advances, he stopped paying her the money she was owed. If she can make that link, her case will be even stronger. 

 

 

[Tom2112]

50 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

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

 

Also debatable, but besides the point.

 

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

 

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

Well a civil suit is the correct court to file in, not sure what else she's supposed to do... This is going to the authorities. There's no murder or assault or any of the other reasons for criminal damages.

But like another post, there seems to be the opposite happening where many don't want this to be true and are just dismissing it as a money grab. Gnrs statement...issued by the defense is hardly that good we can dismiss Kats lengthy legal doc, that has reams of detail!

[G O A T]

18 minutes ago, Gunnerfan_rus said:

That's true but you need to fix your username a little bit now! 😅

I'm a big fan of the band GOAT 👋👋👋