Originally Posted by pornlaw

Here is some really important language from Freeman you should be aware of...

"The payment of acting fees was the only payment involved in the instant case. This payment was made to the actors for performing in a nonobscene film. There is no evidence that defendant paid the acting fees [46 Cal.3d 425] for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, his own or the actors.' Defendant, of course, did not himself participate in any of the sexual conduct. Defendant, the payor, thus did not engage in either the requisite conduct nor did he have the requisite mens rea or purpose to establish procurement for purposes of prostitution."

Even if there's a camera in the room - if you are the producer and the male talent, under Freeman - its still prostitution.