A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread

[TD_washingtonredskins]

16 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Um, that miiiiight not be entirely true.

 

Whether or not the video compilations are criminal in nature may depend upon whatever contracts were signed by the cheerleaders. If it stipulates that behind the scenes-type videos are part of their agreement and that they give permission for any and all footage shot behind the scenes to be used in whatever way the franchise wants, that muddies the waters. This isn't a case of videotaping the women through a peephole while they change in a dressing room. In a situation like I described above they are aware they are being videotaped, they are aware that there could be footage that briefly shows some level of nudity, they would be aware that all footage belongs to the team to be used as they see fit, and that the video being published for commercial distribution would not include any nudity.

 

You don't have to spell out specifically in the contract that "We may take some of the video footage of your naughty bits and compile them into a separate video for internal use. Initial here if you agree to this." But at the same time, you can't make legal contract language purposefully ambiguous to try and cover your ass, either.

 

None of that makes what Larry instructed the video editors to do right or ok, but there's a very real chance it also doesn't make it criminal...just scummy and vile. Enough to get you fired--or in Snyder's case, force you out as owner--but maybe not enough to have you face criminal charges. Will depend on the language of any contract the cheerleaders signed, and if there is any issue of right to privacy (which could also be tricky). Threats of lawsuits aren't necessarily tied to how valid a case is, they can also be tied to pressuring for an out-of-court settlement just to avoid the publicity and end things as quickly as possible. I don't get the impression that's what's happening here. However, when the target of a possible suit is the majority owner of an enterprise worth $3.5 billion dollars, you can't discount the money angle.

 

There is nothing in the contracts that allows the team to use nude footage in any way. That's ridiculous. Yes, the women knew they were being filmed for commercial things like the calendar and the "behind the scenes" video. But nudity and distribution of the outtakes isn't part of the agreement. 

[Riggo#44]

More from The Athletic on Snyder's use of PIs:

 

Quote

“I had never even heard of the meaww.com website until Mr. Snyder’s private investigators came to my office to inquire as to my relationship with the website,” Randazza wrote in his legal filing last week. “I informed Petitioner’s private investigator, Jim Conklin, of this fact prior to the (Snyder) filing … then told him to tell his client to `go (bleep) himself.’ I presume he relayed that message because I can see no other reason for the retaliatory conduct in this petition. Mr. Conklin did not tell me on whose behalf he was working.”

 

Quote

In his motion seeking to reject Snyder’s subpoena request, Randazza wrote: “Mr. Snyder, who is well known for being thin-skinned, has fumed for years at Mr. Randazza’s insults lobbed at him in the article about his prior defamation case. Or, perhaps Mr. Snyder is simply desperate to concoct a story that will lend some credence to his bizarre theory that everyone is out to get him. Or maybe Mr. Snyder just wants his name out of the press for the 40+ accusations of sexual misconduct against him.”

Randazza told The Athletic via email, “We are not sure what Snyder’s ultimate theory is. But any statement I care to make about it, I have made under oath in my declaration in the case.”

Asked about his ties to the adult entertainment industry, he wrote, “Adult entertainment business — I have some clients who are adult entertainment clients. I was honored by an organization that fights against child porn, which is funded by the adult industry.”

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Riggo#44

[Darrell Green Fan]

As Michaels is a key player do you really think he will protect Snyder after he was forced out?  

 

Oh yeah, thought the article was fine and I'm tired of it being picked apart. As was posted writer was asked what the chances were and he gave a hard number and was the only person to my knowledge who did that.  His inside info was also informative.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

15 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

There is nothing in the contracts that allows the team to use nude footage in any way. That's ridiculous. Yes, the women knew they were being filmed for commercial things like the calendar and the "behind the scenes" video. But nudity and distribution of the outtakes isn't part of the agreement. 

 

I guarantee you don't know that. I've dealt with contracts with models. I've done the videotaping and taken photos. I know what is legal and illegal on my end as far as how I use the images and videos, even when there is no contract. And it's far more likely that the contracts give 100% ownership to every pixel on every video and photo to the team, with the specifics spelled out in terms of what gets distributed commercially...not internally.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I guarantee you don't know that. I've dealt with contracts with models. I've done the videotaping and taken photos. I know what is legal and illegal on my end as far as how I use the images and videos, even when there is no contract. And it's far more likely that the contracts give 100% ownership to every pixel on every video and photo to the team, with the specifics spelled out in terms of what gets distributed commercially...not internally.

 

I wouldn't be too sure. You are giving this organization far too much credit for how they write their contracts and prepare themselves proactively. They broke the law. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

15 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

More from The Athletic on Snyder's use of PIs:

 

"In his motion seeking to reject Snyder’s subpoena request, Randazza wrote: “Mr. Snyder, who is well known for being thin-skinned, has fumed for years at Mr. Randazza’s insults lobbed at him in the article about his prior defamation case. Or, perhaps Mr. Snyder is simply desperate to concoct a story that will lend some credence to his bizarre theory that everyone is out to get him. Or maybe Mr. Snyder just wants his name out of the press for the 40+ accusations of sexual misconduct against him.”

 

 

This sounds more like Snyder's statement in response to the WP article than what you would normally put in a legal motion to dismiss. Doesn't seem like things like "he's thin-skinned" and "he thinks everyone is out to get him" would be strong arguments for a judge to use to dismiss a case.

[Riggo#44]

8 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

This sounds more like Snyder's statement in response to the WP article than what you would normally put in a legal motion to dismiss. Doesn't seem like things like "he's thin-skinned" and "he thinks everyone is out to get him" would be strong arguments for a judge to use to dismiss a case.

 

If it wasn't our owner, I'd be laughing at it. Well, I'd be laughing more at it. But this...is just shameful. You can just smell the hair grease, Axe body spray, and stripper perfume coming from this article.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Just now, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I wouldn't be too sure. You are giving this organization far too much credit for how they write their contracts and prepare themselves proactively. They broke the law. 

 

You say they broke the law because in your mind it "should" be against the law, not because you know enough info to determine if it was or not. That's why I said "that miiiiight not be entirely true".

 

I've mentioned before that I have thousands of photos and some video footage on my computer of numerous models I've worked with. Some of those photos have accidental or unintentional nudity. And some of these models are now public figures with hundreds of thousands of followers on Instagram and appearances on TV (overseas) and write-ups in Maxim and done just a ton of paid shoots. And I have nude photos of them lol..

 

For the sake of argument, if I wanted to make a photo collage of all the accidental nudity and then published it publicly either for fame or money, that's illegal. If I wanted to make that same photo collage but only for myself and nobody else was going to see it, and the models found out, no way in hell am I going to jail for that. No way. They would stop working with me and I would be branded a pervert and word would spread...but I'm not being charged with any criminal activity. Whether I have the images individually or as a collage, it doesn't matter. The same could be said of the videos...whether they look at the unedited behind the scenes video and just freeze frame on the naughty bits or make a compilation of just the naughty bits probably doesn't matter in terms of whether making that video is illegal or not.

 

These videos could fall under sexual harassment regardless of any contracts signed since it could be argued that they helped establish an uncomfortable work atmosphere even if the cheerleaders didn't find out about it until long after the fact. But it's not a slam dunk that it's illegal to take parts of a video you legally own and in which the models in the video were well aware you were videotaping them and agreed to let you videotape them, and make an edited version for internal viewing.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

11 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

But it's not a slam dunk that it's illegal to take parts of a video you legally own and in which the models in the video were well aware you were videotaping them and agreed to let you videotape them, and make an edited version for internal viewing.

See that's the part I disagree with but I'm not a lawyer. I think it's the editing and distribution of the nude images that crosses over from "it's my video and I can do what I want" to an illegal activity. They took all the nude outtakes and showed it to executives. That's the part that is illegal without consent or knowledge from the girls. 

 

§ 18.2-386.2. Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty.

A. Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this subsection, "another person" includes a person whose image was used in creating, adapting, or modifying a videographic or still image with the intent to depict an actual person and who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic.

Edited September 10, 2020 by TD_washingtonredskins

[Califan007 The Constipated]

6 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

See that's the part I disagree with but I'm not a lawyer. I think it's the editing and distribution of the nude images that crosses over from "it's my video and I can do what I want" to an illegal activity. They took all the nude outtakes and showed it to executives. That's the part that is illegal without consent or knowledge from the girls. 

 

That's the part that I think makes it sexual harassment in the workplace. That aspect could lead it to a civil case or a settlement.

 

I don't think a strong case could be made that it's illegal for execs of a company to show a video the company owns to other execs of that same company, even in compilation form.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Califan007

[TD_washingtonredskins]

3 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

That's the part that I think makes it sexual harassment in the workplace. That aspect could lead it to a civil case or a settlement.

 

I don't think a strong case could be made that it's illegal for execs of a company to show a video the company owns to other execs of that same company, even in compilation form.

Well clearly the non-consensual nudity is the x-factor. We'll see. I'm sure they have the right to run "Beauties on the Beach" on a loop if they want to since it's all content the girls knew was "in bounds" and signed up for. But when they cross over into pornography it changes the rules. 

[FootballZombie]

Big corporations are big for a reason. Don’t discredit their ability to protect themselves and weasel their way out of unforeseen problems.

 

I worked in a PetsMart Hotel a while back and they had a specific policy in place. Before we would accept someone’s pet, they had to sign a release waiver. That waiver exonerated PetsMart from anything that happened during the course of an animals stay. Didn’t even matter if something bad happened and it was our fault, we could not be held liable.  If they refused to sign, we would not accept their animal. Simple as that.

 

Not that this is a apples to apples comparison (pets are only property under US law), just shows that corporations will work to protect themselves both before the fact, and after the fact and it is probably prudent to expect any large corporation to actively do so.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

 

2 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

Big corporations are big for a reason. Don’t discredit their ability to protect themselves and weasel their way out of unforeseen problems.

 

 

 

I worked in a PetsMart Hotel a while back and they had a specific policy in place. Before we would accept someone’s pet, they had to sign a release waiver. That waiver exonerated PetsMart from anything that happened during the course of an animals stay. Didn’t even matter if something bad happened and it was our fault, we could not be held liable.  If they refused to sign, we would not accept their animal. Simple as that.

 

 

 

Not that this is a apples to apples comparison (pets are only property under US law), just shows that corporations will work to protect themselves both before the fact, and after the fact and it is probably prudent to expect any large corporation to actively do so.

 

I see your point, and the Redskins have attempted things like that with NDAs, etc. But breaking the law is breaking the law and a lot of those protections become null and void. 

 

Believe me, if one of your customers found out that you didn't feed their dog for a week leading to his death, your waiver wouldn't hold up if they decided to press charges. There's still an expectation of professionalism and conduct that an employee or customer can expect. If it were that easy to just have people sign something that absolves you of any responsibility, no one would ever get in trouble. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

23 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

 

§ 18.2-386.2. Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty.

A. Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this subsection, "another person" includes a person whose image was used in creating, adapting, or modifying a videographic or still image with the intent to depict an actual person and who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic.

 

Two important parts:

 

1) "with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate"

- The purpose of the edited video from what I've read/heard was not to do any of those things. However, like I said it could have lead to sexual harassment in a workplace environment, even though that wasn't it's intent.

 

2) "not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image"

- That's where the contracts come into play. By definition, the video would pretty much have to be disseminated even if only from the videographer to the editor (*unless they re one in the same). So point #1 comes back into play as well as any contracts signed.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Califan007

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

Two important parts:

 

1) "with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate"

- The purpose of the edited video from what I've read/heard was not to do any of those things. However, like I said it could have lead to sexual harassment in a workplace environment.

 

2) "not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image"

- That's where the contracts come into play. By definition, the video would pretty much have to be disseminated even if only from the videographer to the editor (*unless they re one in the same). So point #1 comes back into play as well as any contracts signed.

 

Right, so if I'm correct and the girls didn't sign contracts turning their nude images over to the team, the Redskins are in some trouble here...right?

[FootballZombie]

Just now, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

...Yes and No

 

You are pretty much completely safe from personal lawsuits.

 

The Customer waived all rights to come after workers or the company, regardless of what was done. Seen it come into play when someones dog got bit by another dog. Customer could not hold us accountable, and instead filed a lawsuit against the other owner even though though the dog was in our care.

 

Now if you do something unspeakable like that and a dog dies, then you will get yourself fired and you are no longer protected by that waiver. You can then be the target of said lawsuit.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 minute ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Right, so if I'm correct and the girls didn't sign contracts turning their nude images over to the team, the Redskins are in some trouble here...right?

 

Oh, absolutely lol...I would be surprised if it wasn't mentioned in a contract, though (well, as you said, this IS the Redskins we're talking about). I'm doing part of my analysis from personal experience and extrapolating it to what the cheerleaders probably experienced during their shoots. Ones I have had models sign release me from all claims connected to how I used the photos, including libel and invasion of privacy. It's kinda standard from what I know, so I'm assuming similar things were signed off in whatever release or contract the cheerleaders signed.

 

I gain a lot of trust from models and I take it as a badge of honor. But there are a ton of scummy photographers out there who should not be given trust--a friend of mine who tried briefly to become a model showed me a bunch of proofs from a shoot she did with a guy whose work is really good. She said halfway through the shoot when she was offered something to drink she started feeling drugged afterwards. You could see it in the photos 😐...I told her she should report him or take some sort of action but she said she couldn't prove it and nothing happened during the shoot as a result. But it pissed me off to no end. This video had the same affect on me.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

4 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

...Yes and No

 

You are pretty much completely safe from personal lawsuits.

 

The Customer waived all rights to come after workers or the company, regardless of what was done. Seen it come into play when someones dog got bit by another dog. Customer could not hold us accountable, and instead filed a lawsuit against the other owner even though though the dog was in our care.

 

Now if you do something unspeakable like that and a dog dies, then you will get yourself fired and you are no longer protected by that waiver. You can then be the target of said lawsuit.

 

But again, you're comparing something that might happen accidentally vs. something that was premeditated and done intentionally. 

 

If the cheerleaders were going to sue Dan Snyder because one of them got bit by a shark during the photo shoot, I'd agree that they are probably on their own and the organization should be protected. But, by stitching together nude outtakes without their knowledge and against their consent, this jumps into a different stratosphere. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Oh, absolutely lol...I would be surprised if it wasn't mentioned in a contract, though (well, as you said, this IS the Redskins we're talking about). I'm doing part of my analysis from personal experience and extrapolating it to what the cheerleaders probably experienced during their shoots. Ones I have had models sign release me from all claims connected to how I used the photos, including libel and invasion of privacy. It's kinda standard from what I know, so I'm assuming similar things were signed off in whatever release or contract the cheerleaders signed.

 

I gain a lot of trust from models and I take it as a badge of honor. But there are a ton of scummy photographers out there who should not be given trust--a friend of mine who tried briefly to become a model showed me a bunch of proofs from a shoot she did with a guy whose work is really good. She said halfway through the shoot when she was offered something to drink she started feeling drugged afterwards. You could see it in the photos 😐...I told her she should report him or take some sort of action but she said she couldn't prove it and nothing happened during the shoot as a result. But it pissed me off to no end. This video had the same affect on me.

 

I guess I just have an issue believing that people can absolve themselves of wrongdoing ahead of time. To me, there's a difference between the outtakes existing because a camera was running and girls were topless or body-painted. Obviously, these girls knew there might be a nipslip or something exposed when they were adjusting things. 

 

But, they also can fairly believe their employers will dispose of or protect those images once the final commercial product is created. Not only were those unnecessary outtakes kept around, but they were harvested for upper management viewing and whatever else. NDA, contract, or whatever - the spirit of that agreement was abused and violated. 

 

The best non-naked example I can come up with is my bank. I entrust it with all sorts of information about myself that I don't want getting out. I know that they have my account numbers, SSN, etc. But, they are responsible for protecting it. When there are breaches, they are held accountable and it's a big deal. 

[FootballZombie]

10 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

something that might happen accidentally vs. something that was premeditated and done intentionally. 

 

Intent does not matter. At any level the waiver was meant to cover the company and the employee. If an employee intentionally does something wrong, the company does not want to be held accountable, so the waiver provides blanket coverage over both areas. If it especially hanus, an employee would be fired and exposed, but some high stakes companies work in clauses that protect "past and present" employees.

 

signing away your right to sue is signing away your right to sue. Unless there are gaps in the contract, sign-ees don't get to choose to sue about some things and not others.

 

3 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

guess I just have an issue believing that people can absolve themselves of wrongdoing ahead of time.

 

I feel ya and it sucks, but we are living in a post McDs hot coffee spill world. Companies are going to pull out all the sleaze to escape liability

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I just can't imagine that any interpretation of their contracts accounts for "we will retain any of your naked images and create a video so that our upper management can have circle jerk sessions" and I don't think NDAs absolve anyone of criminal activity. 

 

I guess we'll see how it plays out but from what I've heard so far I'm pretty confident the cheerleaders will have a case and will win. What was done deviates so far from what any contract or NDA would cover, that it must violate the spirit of what was on paper. These are all girls who did this part-time while raising families, holding down full-time jobs, etc. 

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

11 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I guess I just have an issue believing that people can absolve themselves of wrongdoing ahead of time. To me, there's a difference between the outtakes existing because a camera was running and girls were topless or body-painted. Obviously, these girls knew there might be a nipslip or something exposed when they were adjusting things. 

 

But, they also can fairly believe their employers will dispose of or protect those images once the final commercial product is created. Not only were those unnecessary outtakes kept around, but they were harvested for upper management viewing and whatever else. NDA, contract, or whatever - the spirit of that agreement was abused and violated. 

 

The best non-naked example I can come up with is my bank. I entrust it with all sorts of information about myself that I don't want getting out. I know that they have my account numbers, SSN, etc. But, they are responsible for protecting it. When there are breaches, they are held accountable and it's a big deal. 

'

It's definitely a big deal, but what we were talking about is whether or not it's illegal. There are a ton of things that occurred within the offices of Redskins Park that were mentioned in the articles that qualify as big deals that people need(ed) to feel the ramifications for. A lot of them have. The guy who--at best--allowed these things to occur has felt it slightly and needs to feel it far more strongly...even possibly to losing ownership. But criminal charges may not apply for a lot of the stuff that has been reported so far. Although I doubt it happens, I sincerely hope everyone who knows exactly what occurred with the video compilation comes forward and tells the truth on record.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just now, Califan007 said:

Although I doubt it happens, I sincerely hope everyone who knows exactly what occurred with the video compilation comes forward and tells the truth on record.

I do too - I also believe that if this was KNOWN to be done in 2008 and 2010, it's almost certainly a tradition or annual thing so there are many more victims out there. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

5 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I do too - I also believe that if this was KNOWN to be done in 2008 and 2010, it's almost certainly a tradition or annual thing so there are many more victims out there. 

 

I had wondered about that...whether the behind-the-scenes footage was done yearly or only on occasion.

 

I also was of the impression that some of the footage from the behind-the-scenes video would end up in an official release but never bothered to check if that was the case. Because if not...

[TD_washingtonredskins]

3 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I had wondered about that...whether the behind-the-scenes footage was done yearly or only on occasion.

 

I also was of the impression that some of the footage from the behind-the-scenes video would end up in an official release but never bothered to check if that was the case. Because if not...

 

It would be almost shocking to me that they "got away with it" years ago and just stopped. 

 

What do you mean by your second sentence? My understanding is that there was a calendar and a short video with interviews of the girls (clothed), etc. But the nude video is outtakes that aren't used anywhere else.