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

[BangoSkank]

On 11/14/2023 at 11:16 AM, Voodoochild said:

I believe in her 100%. From the very little experience I had with him, he acted with others in a disrespectful manner. I can totally see him being exactly how Kat described.

And of course I agree, Fernando has to go.

Same. I had two brief interactions with him outside of Brooklyn Bowl and he could not have been more rude. Everything here rings true for me.

Edited November 23, 2023 by BangoSkank

[PatrickS77]

On 11/19/2023 at 11:15 PM, allwaystired said:

I think the users of this forum and especially this thread have perhaps made up their own mind about your intellectual prowess, so I don't feel the need to stoop to low level playground insults. 

Have a wonderful evening oh wise one. 

 

Yeah. Whatever.

https://imgur.com/gallery/ajAsG7o

Edited November 23, 2023 by PatrickS77

[allwaystired]

26 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Yeah. Whatever.

https://imgur.com/gallery/ajAsG7o

Seriously, seriously peculiar. 

[Homefuck]

Not surprised.

[justynius]

On 11/19/2023 at 8:56 AM, PatrickS77 said:

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.

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.

[PatrickS77]

2 hours ago, justynius said:

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.

Once again, THEY PAID HER TO MAKE PHOTOS FOR THEM. They took her out on “364 shows or 30 ‘legs’” for what? For her to walk away, claiming and demanding sole ownership of the photos and for them to have nothing?? Get real. I agree with the bolded.

Also she didn't wait to sue. She apparantly tried to sue already at the beginning of the year and somehow that got botched up.

[justynius]

34 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Once again, THEY PAID HER TO MAKE PHOTOS FOR THEM. They took her out on “364 shows or 30 ‘legs’” for what? For her to walk away, claiming and demanding sole ownership of the photos and for them to have nothing?? Get real. I agree with the bolded.

Also she didn't wait to sue. She apparantly tried to sue already at the beginning of the year and somehow that got botched up.

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.

[Spiritual_Chaos]

9 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

Once again, THEY PAID HER TO MAKE PHOTOS FOR THEM. They took her out on “364 shows or 30 ‘legs’” for what? For her to walk away, claiming and demanding sole ownership of the photos and for them to have nothing?? Get real. I agree with the bolded.

Also she didn't wait to sue. She apparantly tried to sue already at the beginning of the year and somehow that got botched up.

Do you have any experience in hiring and writing contracts with photographers regarding relesisng and having ownerships photographs?

Do you have any experience in that field?

[JasmineSwe]

It seems incredibly unprofessional to not give her a written contract. This is one of the biggest bands in the world. 

[Blackstar]

12 hours ago, justynius said:

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.

There were written contracts, but most of the time she worked without a contract. Her lawsuit says that she doesn't claim ownership of the photos she took while under contract (excerpts from the written contracts signed in 2010, 2016 ad 2021 are quoted in GN'R's lawsuit, according to which GN'R would have full ownership of the photos, including copyright).

The long "uncontracted" periods were in between written contracts, which likely weakens her case - it's safe to assume that GN'R will claim that since she signed a contract in 2021 which was identical to the one she had signed in 2016, it means that she accepted to work under the same terms during 2017-2020 (when there was no written contract).

[PatrickS77]

13 hours ago, justynius said:

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.

There was a contract in the beginning that states that GNR is the owner. Why would anyone assume they would suddenly give her ownership? Her continued work is just a continuation of what was originally agreed in written form. Of course it is dumb on GNR's part to not have a contract. I guess that's where Fernando's "but you're family" comes into play. In fact, they are not family. And really, not giving her credit (as in mentioning who took the pic is one thing), claiming there is unauthorized use, when they paid her to do the photos and gave her unprecedented access to do so, is another. But we do seem to agree that the harassment issue was thrown in there to have more leverage against them to make them settle.

[PatrickS77]

5 hours ago, Spiritual_Chaos said:

Do you have any experience in hiring and writing contracts with photographers regarding relesisng and having ownerships photographs?

Do you have any experience in that field?

Nope, I don't. Never claimed I have. But how is that relevant?? Anyone paying someone to be there for “364 shows or 30 ‘legs’” and have them make photos on their dime and time and then ending up not owning the photos and the photographer having sole ownership, is a fucking idiot. Period.

It would be a different story if the photographer would do that on their own dime (paying for travelling and accomodation and time spent to be there to make the photos themselves), then they should keep ownership and charge (and keep control of) for every photo the client wants to use (just like maybe in Jarmo's case, who wasn't hired as a photographer and only does it as a hobby, though I guess, he never has been given express permission to take photos either and also is doing it on GNR's dime, as in during the different job they pay him for, so I guess that's a grey area there).

Either it's one or the other, but both (getting everything paid AND keeping ownership of the photos), is just wrong. What is in it for the band? They might as well buy photos from local photographers or fans. And I don't give a flying fuck what a law, which may be different in any given country, says.

Edited November 25, 2023 by PatrickS77

[justynius]

3 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

There was a contract in the beginning that states that GNR is the owner. Why would anyone assume they would suddenly give her ownership? Her continued work is just a continuation of what was originally agreed in written form. Of course it is dumb on GNR's part to not have a contract. I guess that's where Fernando's "but you're family" comes into play. In fact, they are not family. And really, not giving her credit (as in mentioning who took the pic is one thing), claiming there is unauthorized use, when they paid her to do the photos and gave her unprecedented access to do so, is another. But we do seem to agree that the harassment issue was thrown in there to have more leverage against them to make them settle.

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.

[PatrickS77]

2 hours ago, justynius said:

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.

Well, ownership would be consequential to GNR if they have to ask Kat for permission to do anything with the photos, outside the website or if she has the right to veto whatever they want to do with it. Or if Kat wants to do something with their images, without having to ask them. Whether they want to use it for a pornography video or political propaganda (really??) should be inconsequential to the photographer, as the persons in the picture gets associated supporting that. Not the photgrapher.

[adamsapple]

9 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

Nope, I don't. Never claimed I have. But how is that relevant??

Because some people on here do and you are not listening.

[justynius]

6 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

Well, ownership would be consequential to GNR if they have to ask Kat for permission to do anything with the photos, outside the website or if she has the right to veto whatever they want to do with it. Or if Kat wants to do something with their images, without having to ask them. Whether they want to use it for a pornography video or political propaganda (really??) should be inconsequential to the photographer, as the persons in the picture gets associated supporting that. Not the photgrapher.

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.

[BucketEgg]

I'm not signing up for PACER ( https://pacer.uscourts.gov/ ) to see the documents for real, since you have to pay to use its services ( https://pacer.uscourts.gov/pacer-pricing-how-fees-work )
,

but it appears there's some sort of movement going on in the case.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51347800/Benzova_v_Guns_N_Roses_et_al

And there's this other one, beginning october 24th 2023, where Kat is the defendant and GnR people sued her, but it seems to have paused at October 27th

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51083077/Gundam_Touring_Services_US_LLC_v_Katarina_Benzova

 

" 2:23-cv-09538-FMO-E NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint returned Executed filed by Plaintiff Katarina Benzova, upon Defendant Gundam Touring Services U.S. LLC acknowledgment sent by Plaintiff on 11/15/2023, answer due 12/6/2023. Acknowledgment of Service signed by Colin Hoag, Terri Scupen. (Rosenblatt, Zach) "

 

👀 one last drama before the release of the perhaps vinyl!

 

There's the courtlistener, freelaw, and recap projects. so if someone else participating in those projects has bought the documents, and uploaded it, you might be able to see it for yourself

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67998002/katarina-benzova-v-guns-n-roses/

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67910567/gundam-touring-services-us-llc-v-katarina-benzova/

I wonder what the complaint GnR had against Benzova was. The pacermonitor link says it was only six pages long.

I can only get this image glimpse before getting paywalled by that unofficial site:

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by BucketEgg

[Blackstar]

1 hour ago, BucketEgg said:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67910567/gundam-touring-services-us-llc-v-katarina-benzova/

I wonder what the complaint GnR had against Benzova was. The pacermonitor link says it was only six pages long.

I can only get this image glimpse before getting paywalled by that unofficial site:

Here is the full document. I had posted the link on one of the first pages of this thread:

https://www.docdroid.net/ecAH9bW/20231024-lawsuit-gundam-touring-services-us-llc-v-benzova-pdf

[Scream of the Butterfly]

Speaking of lawsuits, I was wondering what happened with the trademark lawsuit GNR filed against Texas Guns And Roses about a year ago. Turns out the case has been dismissed.

https://archive.completemusicupdate.com/article/guns-n-roses-trademark-lawsuit-against-texas-seller-of-guns-and-roses-dismissed/

 

[Blackstar]

1 hour ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

Speaking of lawsuits, I was wondering what happened with the trademark lawsuit GNR filed against Texas Guns And Roses about a year ago. Turns out the case has been dismissed.

https://archive.completemusicupdate.com/article/guns-n-roses-trademark-lawsuit-against-texas-seller-of-guns-and-roses-dismissed/

 

Yes, it was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, because the lawsuit was filed in the District Court of California. The judge ruled that there was no proof that the company did business there, so GN'R should have filed it in Texas:

https://www.docdroid.net/LbAi6Zr/20230606-jersey-village-florist-guns-lawsuit-pdf

[downzy]

6 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Yes, it was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, because the lawsuit was filed in the District Court of California. The judge ruled that there was no proof that the company did business there, so GN'R should have filed it in Texas:

https://www.docdroid.net/LbAi6Zr/20230606-jersey-village-florist-guns-lawsuit-pdf

I'm no lawyer, but how GNR's legal team thought filing in California was the proper venue seems like a way to bilk Axl and Guns out of more billable hours.  

This is basic jurisprudence 101.  

I hope Guns found new legal representation after this.  

[Blackstar]

16 minutes ago, downzy said:

I'm no lawyer, but how GNR's legal team thought filing in California was the proper venue seems like a way to bilk Axl and Guns out of more billable hours.  

This is basic jurisprudence 101.  

I hope Guns found new legal representation after this.  

Yeah, GN'R's attorneys claimed in the lawsuit that the company did business in California, too (although based in Texas), but they apparently didn't have any evidence to support the claim.

https://www.docdroid.net/ua36C7y/20221201-jersey-village-florist-guns-lawsuit-pdf

It's the same legal team that has represented GN'R in all the other trademark related lawsuits

[downzy]

55 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Yeah, GN'R's attorneys claimed in the lawsuit that the company did business in California, too (although based in Texas), but they apparently didn't have any evidence to support the claim.

Because if we know one thing about judges, they love it when counsel argues a point without evidence. 

Christ...

[Blackstar]

28 minutes ago, downzy said:

Because if we know one thing about judges, they love it when council argues a point without evidence. 

Christ...

It looks like GN'R's lawyers really blew it in this case:

In this case, Defendant does not direct any advertisements to the State of California and
none of Defendant’s sales through the <http://texasgunsandroses.com> website or in conjunction
with the TEXAS GUNS AND ROSES Marks have been made to any residents or customers
located in the State of California. Docket No. 25-1, ¶ 7. Nevertheless, Plaintiff claims that
Defendant’s acts were expressly aimed at the forum state because Defendant identifies certain
firearms offered for sale on its Website as “California Compliant," and “California Legal” and as
having a “Compmag Compliant Magazine.” Under the circumstances of this case, the Court
concludes that such conduct is insufficient to satisfy the express aiming requirement.

As pointed out by Defendant, federal regulations strictly limit a Texas-based store’s ability to
sell or offer for sale firearms to residents and customers in California. See 18 U.S.C. § 922, et
seq. Thus, it is not entirely surprising that Defendant has not directed any advertisements to the
State of California or that Defendant has not made a single sale through its Website to any
residents or customers located in the State of California.

Furthermore, whether a product is “California Compliant” or “California legal” is simply a
factual statement about the qualities of the product, and the Court concludes that such a statement
does not, without more, indicate that Defendant had the intent or purpose to serve the California
market. While the manufacturer may have designed these products with the California market in
mind, these “California Compliant” or “California legal” products can also be purchased and used in
Texas (or elsewhere). Defendant has merely included all relevant information regarding a particular
firearm or other product within the product title or descriptions to assist a customer in making a
purchasing decision.

...

There is also no indication that this matter could be more efficiently resolved
in California, and Texas appears to offer an appropriate alternative forum. Although Plaintiff may
have an interest in litigating this action in California because it is more convenient, the Ninth Circuit
has held that “the plaintiff’s convenience is not of paramount importance” to the reasonableness
inquiry.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Blackstar

[Uncle Bob]

49 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

It looks like GN'R's lawyers really blew it in this case:

In this case, Defendant does not direct any advertisements to the State of California and
none of Defendant’s sales through the <http://texasgunsandroses.com> website or in conjunction
with the TEXAS GUNS AND ROSES Marks have been made to any residents or customers
located in the State of California. Docket No. 25-1, ¶ 7. Nevertheless, Plaintiff claims that
Defendant’s acts were expressly aimed at the forum state because Defendant identifies certain
firearms offered for sale on its Website as “California Compliant," and “California Legal” and as
having a “Compmag Compliant Magazine.” Under the circumstances of this case, the Court
concludes that such conduct is insufficient to satisfy the express aiming requirement.

As pointed out by Defendant, federal regulations strictly limit a Texas-based store’s ability to
sell or offer for sale firearms to residents and customers in California. See 18 U.S.C. § 922, et
seq. Thus, it is not entirely surprising that Defendant has not directed any advertisements to the
State of California or that Defendant has not made a single sale through its Website to any
residents or customers located in the State of California.

Furthermore, whether a product is “California Compliant” or “California legal” is simply a
factual statement about the qualities of the product, and the Court concludes that such a statement
does not, without more, indicate that Defendant had the intent or purpose to serve the California
market. While the manufacturer may have designed these products with the California market in
mind, these “California Compliant” or “California legal” products can also be purchased and used in
Texas (or elsewhere). Defendant has merely included all relevant information regarding a particular
firearm or other product within the product title or descriptions to assist a customer in making a
purchasing decision.

...

There is also no indication that this matter could be more efficiently resolved
in California, and Texas appears to offer an appropriate alternative forum. Although Plaintiff may
have an interest in litigating this action in California because it is more convenient, the Ninth Circuit
has held that “the plaintiff’s convenience is not of paramount importance” to the reasonableness
inquiry.

Could you translate this to me as if I had some severe mental retardation, please?