Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of The
Diddy Diaries. In this episode, we're going to get right
back to the Sarah Rivers lawsuit filed against Ditty and
we're picking up with the seventh cause of action sexual harassment,
gender discrimination and hostile work environment under New York City
Human Rights Law and why Executive Law Section eight Dash
one oh one and y CHURL against defendant Ditty BB,
Bad Boy Records. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every
allegation in all of the preceding paragraphs as a fully
set forth here in, Defendants Didty BB and Bad Boy
Records discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of her gender
and violation of the NYCCHRL by subjecting plaintiff to one
wanted touching of her intimate parts, enforcing plaintiff to endure
derogatory name calling, constituting a hostile work environment. Defendants engaged
in a pattern of criminal conduct in the workplace that
created an offensive, intimidating, and hostile atmosphere for plaintiff based
on her gender. As a direct and approximate result of
defendants unlawful discriminatory conduct and violation of the nyc HRL,
Plaintiff has sustained and will continue to sustain monetary damages,
end or economic harm, physical injury, pain and suffering, and
serious psychological and emotional distress. Defendants unlawful and discriminatory actions
were intentional, done with malice, and or showed a deliberate, wilful, wanton,
and reckless indifference to the plaintiff's rights under the nyc HRL,
for which plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
Defendants continuous threats, coercion, and interference with Plaintiff's career prevented
plaintiff from asserting her rights within the statutorily prescribed period.
Defendants should be stopped from asserting the Statute of limitations
as a defense due to the duress exerted upon plaintiff.
Eighth cause of action retaliation and violation of New York
State Human Rights Law n ysh ROL Section two ninety
six against defendant Ditty BB and bad Boy Records. Plaintiff
repeats and realleges each and every allegation in all of
the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set. Fourth here in
Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by rejecting defendant sexual advances,
which constitutes opposition to unlawful sexual harassment under New York
State Human Rights Law Section two ninety six. This rejection
is protected activity under the nys HRL as it opposes
discriminatory conduct in the workplace. Defendant Didty Bb and bad
Boy records. Persistent denial of prominent or continuing singing, writing
performing roles as to plaintiff constitutes adverse employment actions. Plaintiff's
rejection of defendant Ditty sexual advances subjected her to an
increasingly hostile work environment based on her gender. These actions
materially and trimentally affected Plaintiff's terms and conditions of employment
and were in direct response to plaintiff's protected activity of
rejecting defendants sexual advances. Further, defendants failure to pay plaintiffs
earned wages, royalties, and concert and promotional appearance fees according
to contracts and other promises constitutes adverse employment actions based
on gender and were done in retaliation by defendants. There
is a direct casual connection between plaintiffs protected activity and
defendants adverse employment actions. The timing and circumstances indicate defendants
retaliatory motives As a direct and proximate result of defendants retaliation.
Plaintiff is sustained and will continue to sustain monetary damages
and or economic harm, physical injury, pain and suffering, and
serious psychological and emotional distress. Defendants unlawful and retaliatory actions
were intentional, done with malice, and are showed a deliberate, wilful, wanton,
and reckless indifference to Plaintiff's rights under the NYSHRL, for
which plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
Defendant's continuous threats, coercion, and interference with Plaintiff's career prevented
plaintiff from asserting her rights. Defendants should be e stop
from asserting the Statute of limitations as a defense due
to the duress exerted upon plaintiff. Ninth cause of action
violation of right of publicity under New York Rights Civil
Law Section fifty and fifty one and on Justin Richmond
against defendant bb Didty, Bad Boy Records, UMG, bm MTV, VIACOM,
Paramount Janis, JCP, JCPH, and King Plaintiff repeats and realleges
each in every allegation in all of the preceding paragraphs.
As a fully set fourth year in defendant didty required
Plaintiff to perform at and attend numerous promotional events and
interviews as part of mtb V twos group the band,
including later overnight parties, which runder contract between defendant Ditty
and defendant's MTV, BM VIACOM and or UMG. Defendant knowingly
used Plaintiff's voice, likeness, image, and persona without Plaintiff's consent
for advertising and promotion purposes and for the purpose of trade.
Defendants have been unjustly enriched at plaintiff's expense by using
plaintiff's voice, image, likeness, and persona without compensating plaintiff. It
would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit conferred
by unauthorized use of Plaintiff's voice, image, likeness, and persona.
As a result of defendants on authorized use of Plaintiff's likeness, image,
and persona, Plaintiffs suffered damages and is entitled to restitution
in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants continue
as threats, coercion, and interference with plaintiff's career prevented plaintiff
from asserting her rights defendants should be easy stop from
asserting the statute of limitations as a defense due to
the duress exerted upon Plaintiff. The tenth cause of action
copyright infringement US Code seventeen, Section one oh six against
defendant Diddy, BB, Bad Boy Records, UMG, BM MTV, VIACOM, Paramount, Janis, JCP,
and JCPH. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation
in all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set.
Fourth here In, Plaintiff wrote, created and performed the music
composition in sound recordings on the album to Offer TV,
the song why on the Bad Boy two soundtrack, and
two theme songs for the television show MTB two seasons
two and three. The compositions and recordings of the above
were published by defendants absent agreement on terms. Thus, defendants
have no signed or enforceable agreement with plaintiff. Plaintiff believes
that Defendant Diddy, BBE, Janis, JCP and or JCP register
the musical composition and sound recording pertinent thereto with a
register of copyrights and receive the certificate of registration. Therefore,
Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the copyrights in the
musical composition, rights of performance therein, and the exclusive rights
to reproduce and distribute to the public by sale or
other transfer of ownership or by lease lending her license
reproductions of the copyrighted works under Copyright Acts seventeen US Code,
Section one oh six, Plaintiff, upon information and belief, believes
defendants and each of them knowingly and willfully and without
securing Plaintiff's permission or license embodied, adapted, used, reproduced, marketed, distributed,
and sold plaintiff stolen copyrighted material on the Bad Boy
two soundtrack. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges her acclaim for copyright infringement
based on each defendant publication of Plaintiff's copyrighted musical composition
without license, permission, or approval, and if such work was
with a license, that license was obtained fraudulently. Each defendant
unquestionably had access to Plaintiff's work through defendants previous companies,
bad Boy Records, etc. Or other of defendants holders of
recorded compositions, and each defendant knowingly and willfully irratified and
confirms that access thereafter in undertaking the conduct complained of
in this action, defendants knowingly and intentionally violated Plaintiff's rights.
At no time did Plaintiff authorize defendants to use, license, own, reproduce, adapt,
or distribute Plaintiff's copyrighted material. At the times of the
acts of infringement complained of, Plaintiff was and is the
rightful owner of the copyright in the music composition identified
and named above. After the respective dates of the first
publication and continuing to the present, the defendants in each
of them have infringed and continue to infringe inge Plaintiff's
copyrights in the music composition by reproducing or causing, contributing to,
and participating in the unauthorized reproduction of the copyrighted material composition,
and by causing, contributing to, and participating in the distribution
of the unauthorized reproductions of the music composition as recorded
to the public. Despite their actual or constructive knowledge through
their individual and collective recording industry experience and knowledge of
copyright laws, enforcement of intellectual property rights in other instances,
and their duties to view and examine licenses for uses
of copyrighted works, defendants have used and promoted, and continue
to use and promote reproduce and to enable others to
reproduce Plaintiff's copyrighted music composition and its complete or substantial
entirety as and for the commercial profit of defendants without
any ongoing payment to or authorization by Plaintiff. Ie no
accountings have been re received. As a direct and proximate
result of defendants knowing and wilful infringing use of the copyrights,
Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, substantial injury, loss,
and damage to our ownership, publishing, and performing rights in
our own composition, which is copyrighted material as a result
of all defendants joint several wilful and deliberate acts of
copyright infringement. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover from defendants
all of the damages sustained by plaintiff permitted by federal
copyright law, including but not limited to, competentory damages, and
the profits derived by defendants as a result other infringing acts,
in an amount to be determined according to proof of trial.
Plaintiff is further entitled to recover from defendants the gains, profits,
and advantages defendants and each of them have obtained as
a result of their acts of copyright infringement. Plaintiff is
entitled to the maximum statutory damages which copyright registration confer
upon a copyright owner pursuing the US Code seventeen, section
five O four C, in the amount of one hundred
and fifty thousand dollars with respect to each defendant for
each work infringed, or for such other amounts as may
be proper under US Code seventeen, section five O four C.
All Right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here,
and in the next episode, we're going to pick up
where we left off, and that's with the eleventh cause
of action. All of the information that goes with this episode,
including my contact information, can be found in the description box.