Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladewire
So contracters not using condoms is ok. Employees not using condoms is a problem.
|
In California, performers hired by a producer for a shoot are considered employees. There really arent any independent contractors in Cali, except for a small group of people that are required to be licensed by the state/county, ie., plumbers, electricians, CPAs, lawyers, massage therapists, ect. They would be considered ICs, but could be considered EEs as well. It depends on the employment situation. But that only applies to 5193. Measure B doesnt take employment status into account in its language and could be used against a husband & wife cam team but probably not - read on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
It seems a bit silly, does't it?
|
Yes it does. But thats what happens when you have private entities such as AHF trying to create law. They really dont know what they are doing and dont understand how these regulations will apply in a practical setting.
For example, Measure B. AHF got that pass the voters but its a dead law. The federal courts struck down the search/inspections aspects of it thanks to Vivid's challenge while leaving the condom part of the law alive. So the LA County Public Health Department cant do condom inspections. They wont even do them if a producer called up and said "hey come to my set I have condoms!" So in essence its not going to be enforced. It cant be enforced. No one wants to enforce it.
So AHF, in their infinite wisdom, now thinks that Prop 60 will close the "loopholes" they have created.