[Wheatfield]

This is the kind of comment informed by experience I hoped for when I posted this. It is easy to be jaded and biased in either direction from an outside perspective, it is quite another thing to respond from experience.

More on this from The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2020/sep/16/emily-ratajkowski-accuses-ph...sexual-assault

“You do know who we are talking about, right?” he (Jonathan Leder) is quoted as saying. “This is the girl that was naked in Treats! magazine, and bounced around naked in the Robin Thicke video at that time. You really want someone to believe she was a victim?”

And so the slut shaming begins.

I wonder if Mr. Leder realizes that what he is really saying, at least to me, is "I'm guilty as sin and so I am going to destroy her credibility in order to preserve mine"
To me it screams that Mr. Leder has not an ounce of human decency.
It will be interesting to see if the floodgates open and more women come forward to say he has tried the same scam with them.

[Serkevan]

More on this from The Guardian:

Emily Ratajkowski accuses photographer of sexual assault | Fashion | The Guardian

“You do know who we are talking about, right?” he (Jonathan Leder) is quoted as saying. “This is the girl that was naked in Treats! magazine, and bounced around naked in the Robin Thicke video at that time. You really want someone to believe she was a victim?”

And so the slut shaming begins.

I wonder if Mr. Leder realizes that what he is really saying, at least to me, is "I'm guilty as sin and so I am going to destroy her credibility in order to preserve mine"
To me it screams that Mr. Leder has not an ounce of human decency.
It will be interesting to see if the floodgates open and more women come forward to say he has tried the same scam with them.

Ah yes, the "she did something against traditional morals at some point so her right to say 'no' won't ever be valid again" defense.

Part of me cynically expected such argument because shaming everything around sex or the naked body is far too deeply ingrained in many societies, but I'm still baffled by the argument the photographer brandished.

[Wheatfield]

Ah yes, the "she did something against traditional morals at some point so her right to say 'no' won't ever be valid again" defense.

Part of me cynically expected such argument because shaming everything around sex or the naked body is far too deeply ingrained in many societies, but I'm still baffled by the argument the photographer brandished.

He did it because recent history has proven that this sort of argument works. How many times have we heard people, when faced with a similar accusation, say "I never met her", "I don't know her", "she's not my type", etc, and then go on to belittle, insult or denigrate their accuser.

By victimizing the person once and getting away with it, they have proven that they can victimize her, so it's a natural step for the accused person to play the victim card themselves while concurrently victimizing the person yet again.

I happen to know of one rich and powerful guy who has over 2 dozen of this type of complaint against him, with another having just come to light. Every time, it was the same set of character assassinations.

Mr. Leder can't do much about what Ms. Ratajkowski is saying, but by attacking her character and her morals, he can both deflate her complaint and encourage other victims that may be out there to keep their mouths shut or suffer the same torment.

In Ms. Ratajkowski's case, the fact that she is/was a model who did nude work makes it much easier to contest her morals in a society that views that type of work the way her society does.
Edit: By trashing a person's morality, their complaint is diminished by a narrative saying either "don't believe her, look at how she acts", or worse, "she's immoral so she got what she deserved".
This is the game Leder is playing, and he knows that by playing it, he wins the battle.
He may, of course, lose the war if models start refusing to work for him.

Wait for the narratives regarding this if it takes off even a little bit. For her sake, I hope she has a thick skin a strong character and a lot of support, I suspect she will need all three to weather the storm heading her way.

[leekil]

Part of me cynically expected such argument because shaming everything around sex or the naked body is far too deeply ingrained in many societies, but I'm still baffled by the argument the photographer brandished.

Implies to me that what she said he did was true, so he had no real defense.

Yes...lots to unpack. I don't work with models, but have often wondered what the dynamic is when the capture is unflattering, embarrassing, or reveals details of body parts that the model was unaware were in the frame. ... Quid pro quo ...

In some places in the U.S., displaying an image of a person that shows him in a "bad light" can be a basis for an action in defamation.

(Aha! a "quid pro quo" - do I see "collusion" here? Did you collude with that woman? I can just picture some disgraced office holder testifying, "I did not have collusion with that woman!".)

More on this from The Guardian:

Emily Ratajkowski accuses photographer of sexual assault | Fashion | The Guardian

“You do know who we are talking about, right?” he (Jonathan Leder) is quoted as saying. “This is the girl that was naked in Treats! magazine, and bounced around naked in the Robin Thicke video at that time. You really want someone to believe she was a victim?”

And so the slut shaming begins.

I wonder if Mr. Leder realizes that what he is really saying, at least to me, is "I'm guilty as sin and so I am going to destroy her credibility in order to preserve mine"
To me it screams that Mr. Leder has not an ounce of human decency.
It will be interesting to see if the floodgates open and more women come forward to say he has tried the same scam with them.

That's one way of looking at it; but as I see it, the essence of the defense is that the woman is a hypocrite; she intentionally, knowingly and voluntarily entered into a contract by which copyrighted images of her body were to be made, and for which she got paid. Now she comes into court and says, in effect, "but I didn't anticipate all the consequences of my decision and I want to change my mind." As if to say, "Like, whose fault is that?" I guess she didn't have her lawyer look over the contract prior to the shoot. Oops.

[Wheatfield]

That's one way of looking at it; but as I see it, the essence of the defense is that the woman is a hypocrite; she intentionally, knowingly and voluntarily entered into a contract by which copyrighted images of her body were to be made, and for which she got paid. Now she comes into court and says, in effect, "but I didn't anticipate all the consequences of my decision and I want to change my mind." As if to say, "Like, whose fault is that?" I guess she didn't have her lawyer look over the contract prior to the shoot. Oops.

You did read the part about the images being used for one specific purpose (a magazine edition), and that multiple book publications were not included in the original agreement?
You did read the part where the photographer forged a signature regarding the book publications?
The essence of the defense appears to be based on compounded lies with a large dollop of Harvey Weinstein style nuke your victim slut shaming, the type that is used seemingly every time some creep takes advantage of a woman?
Your way of seeing it is one way, but it ignores a lot of what apparently happened, and even more of what didn't.
To be fair, you might just be saying what the defence is based on and not commenting on the veracity of said defence.

---

Last edited by Wheatfield; 09-19-2020 at 07:12 AM.

...
To be fair, you might just be saying what the defence is based on and not commenting on the veracity of said defence.

Thank you for that - it doesn't occur to most people that an analytical comment is not espousal of the cause being argued.

[Serkevan]

That's one way of looking at it; but as I see it, the essence of the defense is that the woman is a hypocrite; she intentionally, knowingly and voluntarily entered into a contract by which copyrighted images of her body were to be made, and for which she got paid. Now she comes into court and says, in effect, "but I didn't anticipate all the consequences of my decision and I want to change my mind." As if to say, "Like, whose fault is that?" I guess she didn't have her lawyer look over the contract prior to the shoot. Oops.

While that's probably the angle they are going with - hypocrisy isn't a crime AFAIK. Sexual assault, on the other hand, very much is... this really sounds like a textbook attempt to manipulate the court's opinion.

---------- Post added 09-19-20 at 07:20 AM ----------

Thank you for that - it doesn't occur to most people that an analytical comment is not espousal of the cause being argued.

"Explanation doesn't imply justification", as I myself have had to remind when discussing unpleasant events.

While that's probably the angle they are going with - hypocrisy isn't a crime AFAIK. Sexual assault, on the other hand, very much is... this really sounds like a textbook attempt to manipulate the court's opinion.

No question that it's an attempt to manipulate the court's opinion, but then that is precisely what lawyers get paid to do. To the extent that the legal subsystem called "equity" still exists, and assuming that the federal courts really can "merge law and equity" (a logical impossibility in my view), here's the problem with that line of reasoning: infringement cases sound in equity, not law (which is why you don't get a jury in an infringement case). And equity recognizes and applies legal principles ("equity follows the law"), it is not bound by them. For example, in an action at law, there will usually be a statute of limitations (exceptions in the criminal process since the Power of the State always gives itself the edge); in equity, S.o.L.'s don't apply (from the plaintiff's point of view, by the way, S.o.L. means something different relating to the absence of good fortune after the time has lapsed). Instead we've got a doctrine called, "laches", which is the application of the maxim, "equity will not aid him who sleeps on his rights"; if you wait an unreasonably long time (in the opinion of the chancellor), regardless of whether it would have been before or after any S.o.L. has elapsed, then you're S.o.L.

In this case, "fairness and substantial justice" is all that the court is supposed to be doing, not a rigorous application of law, so an argument like, "he's another", can be a good defense ("he who comes into court with unclean hands cannot demand equity". So the fact that the plaintiff had already waived her rights by entering into a contract means that she's a loser. The alleged hypocrisy is just icing on the cake, but as you say, clearly meant to negatively influence the court against the plaintiff.

[Wheatfield]

Thank you for that - it doesn't occur to most people that an analytical comment is not espousal of the cause being argued.

I probably came off a little overwrought, this is a subject close to my heart.
Too many times when I was photographing models I was told how nice I was to work with because I was more interested in producing pictures than getting someone naked in my studio, though a few models did comment how strange it was to be treated like a bowl of fruit that I was doing a still life of.
Too many times have i heard the story of the photographer using his camera as an excuse to get a girl out of her clothes and a combination of alcohol, weed and cocaine to bring about compliance for non consensual sex.
Frankly, as soon as any sort of mood altering drug becomes part of the scene, it has the potential to no longer be about the pictures.

[UncleVanya]

Frankly, as soon as any sort of mood altering drug becomes part of the scene, it has the potential to no longer be about the pictures.

This is exactly what I thought reading the article.

[Wheatfield]

Actress accuses Jonathan Leder of abuse, days after Emily Ratajkowski's sexual assault claim | Daily Mail Online

And so it begins. I realize the Daily Mail isn't what can be called a reliable news source, though I suppose this sort of thing is right up their alley.

"Nola Palmer, 29, alleged on Monday that Leder was her 'abuser,' saying she has been 'carrying around the pain and trauma' for a decade now"