An interesting case that could affect content producers
 

I just noticed this Slashdot article:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/02...m-from-youtube

Basically a Judge ordered a film to be taken down from Youtube in part because an actress claims she was tricked into appearing in a film that turned out to be significantly different than what was presented to her, and partly because she was never an "employee" in any meaningful sense.

That seems to me like it could describe quite a few porn shoots, and this is something that could have broad implications for the adult industry depending how the appeal goes and depending on the other factors involved.

I think this will have zero impact. The anti-<religion> theme of that movie is probably why the judge did what he did.

Regardless of the reason why he ruled that way, having that decision on the books paves the way for additional cases to be decided based on the same criteria.

"They told me it was vanilla porn but my bj scene was sandwiched between 2 double anal choking scenes and now everybody thinks I'm a big whore when really I'm just a dancer..."

It can have very broad implications for porn production in and out of those states in the Ninth Circuit. This case strengthens moral rights a performer has in their performance. I would contact your attorneys so that new model releases can be drafted that take this decision into account.

It also has broad implications for those that shoot & produce in states where porn isn't legally recognized and protected as a 1st Amendment right. And for those that don't pay models even in Cali. Those models may now have an ownership/copyright interest in your scene/DVD/website.

Nothing but mad respect for you but have you seen this film? I have and I would say that this is a pretty extreme one-off case - her appearance in that film could easily get her killed.

I understand that it sets a precedent but it would be a long stretch for a porn performer to make.

It means no one should pull any sneaky shit on their actresses/models. Tell them what you want them to do and what you will be doing with the finished product.

In my years of experience I can NOT even guess how many times I have come across stories of performers being scewed over by punters that have advertised promising "not for publication private use only" or have been promised that the video will NOT be on the Internet or have found out that their scene was put in an scat/incest/etc video.

To sum it up...

Stop thinking with your dicks... Stop acting like punters....

Instead be a stand up guy and act like a professional. And if the peformer has any doubts then give the job to someone else.

It is a results based decision but the precedent is there. It can be cited and used as argument in any way a lawyer can. But if the court didn't want it to be used they could have not published the opinion. That's done all the time or they court can even remove it from publication. But they haven't which means either they want this to go up or they want it to be used to expand copyright or perhaps both.

I suspect this case will be reheard en banc though. But who knows how long that will take.

That is something you have to solve with your contract.

The danger element surely sped things up; but I would always think that if there is some misleading stuff going on then any contract can be voided(ie model release) with proof of deception.