Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesouth
It's not a loophole and the legal argument is very simple.
When you shoot a girl there are 2 copyrights to the work, yours and hers neither of you can do anything with that content without the others consent, this consent comes in the form of a model release that releases the models copyright to the photographer, or a photographers release that releases the photographers copyright to the model.
What you are paying for is the release of the copyright, not the sex.
|
Not true... where does the California or New Hampshire Supreme Court discuss model releases, copyrights and intellectual property in either the Freeman decision or the most recent Theriault decision making it legal in NH.
The legal argument is that pornography is a protected First Amendment right and that the person paying the actors, was not receiving sexual gratification.
Under both Freeman and Theriault, POV shoots were the producer and the actor is the same person would not be considered a protected First Amendment right and could be considered prostitution.
BTW - Here is a great article in the Georgetown Law Journal about the enforceability of contracts for sex in this industry.
http://www.georgetownlawjournal.org/...den%5B1%5D.pdf