Monetizing Custom Videos

[saratoga120]

If anyone has any considered advice on the following situation, I'd be grateful to learn of it.

I have made a half dozen hardcore porno videos with starlets that have name recognition. Our agreement when the productions took place was that I could market them on eBay a couple of times a year, but I made it known that I wasn't interested in promoting their sale through a commercial website of my own devising.

With the advent of clips4sale, I am seeing monetary possibilities that didn't exist before and am wondering if the there are likely legal consequences for posting them there.

In all but one case no release was signed, though email correspondence exists attesting to the agreed use as spelled out above.

While the videos might be compromising to the performers if they were in other non-porno professions, the actions depicted in the productions are entirely commensurate with their commercial output.

Am I opening a Pandora's Box? If the likely worst case scenario is that I'd be asked to remove the videos from clips4sale, I would consider the risk worth taking. If damages were sought and the litigation was viable, I would not.

Considered opinions please, although I'm sure there will be the usual snark to sift through.

[mikesouth]

post a copy of your model release

plain and simple thats what it comes down to

[saratoga120]

I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear, but there were no model releases filled out, except in one case in which it was a spur of the moment document I typed up and the model signed.

The only evidence of consent to market the material are the email exchanges.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear, but there were no model releases filled out, except in one case in which it was a spur of the moment document I typed up and the model signed.

The only evidence of consent to market the material are the email exchanges.

If you don't have a model release, you are running a risk doing anything with the content.

What a release does is give you the rights (model gives those rights to you) to do what you choose to do with the content. Without it, you're a sitting duck.

[mikesouth]

If you have no model release you are a fucking MORON to put the content for sale anywhere any one of those girls could bend you over and clean out your assets.

My advice...start over with model releases

[Jim_Gunn]

No model releases, no 2257 documents (you know these are separate, correct?) and who knows if you even have their IDs? Forget it. Whatever few bucks you could have made is not worth the risk. Next time get your paperwork in order first.

[amacontent]

I have a bridge for sale in NYC. I don't have the paperwork but trust me I own it

[saratoga120]

Thanks guys. Your responses have been soberingly effective.

Follow up question: Do I still run a risk if I limit the marketing of the video to what was agreed upon in writing (email), that being an occasional pop on eBay.

[mikesouth]

LOL thats what GFY is best at but seriously you do NOT want to risk everything you own including your freedom over this its a bad idea any way you look at it.

[saratoga120]

Thanks Mike. That does add another dimension if I read you correctly. Could I be exposed to criminal liability by this?

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

If anyone has any considered advice on the following situation, I'd be grateful to learn of it.

I have made a half dozen hardcore porno videos with starlets that have name recognition. Our agreement when the productions took place was that I could market them on eBay a couple of times a year, but I made it known that I wasn't interested in promoting their sale through a commercial website of my own devising.

With the advent of clips4sale, I am seeing monetary possibilities that didn't exist before and am wondering if the there are likely legal consequences for posting them there.

In all but one case no release was signed, though email correspondence exists attesting to the agreed use as spelled out above.

While the videos might be compromising to the performers if they were in other non-porno professions, the actions depicted in the productions are entirely commensurate with their commercial output.

Am I opening a Pandora's Box? If the likely worst case scenario is that I'd be asked to remove the videos from clips4sale, I would consider the risk worth taking. If damages were sought and the litigation was viable, I would not.

Considered opinions please, although I'm sure there will be the usual snark to sift through.

Nothing more than keepsakes of memories that you can look back on for a lifetime. You should not have even been selling that stuff on Ebay. No release, no bueno.

Cue the face palm memes...

What on earth would possess you to do even sell them on eBay without release? Does this mean you didn't make copies of IDs either? Do you live in the US? Do you realize how completely huge your exposure to liability is right now?

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

If anyone has any considered advice on the following situation, I'd be grateful to learn of it.

I have made a half dozen hardcore porno videos with starlets that have name recognition. Our agreement when the productions took place was that I could market them on eBay a couple of times a year, but I made it known that I wasn't interested in promoting their sale through a commercial website of my own devising.

With the advent of clips4sale, I am seeing monetary possibilities that didn't exist before and am wondering if the there are likely legal consequences for posting them there.

In all but one case no release was signed, though email correspondence exists attesting to the agreed use as spelled out above.

While the videos might be compromising to the performers if they were in other non-porno professions, the actions depicted in the productions are entirely commensurate with their commercial output.

Am I opening a Pandora's Box? If the likely worst case scenario is that I'd be asked to remove the videos from clips4sale, I would consider the risk worth taking. If damages were sought and the litigation was viable, I would not.

Considered opinions please, although I'm sure there will be the usual snark to sift through.

Nothing more than keepsakes of memories that you can look back on for a lifetime. You should not have even been selling that stuff on Ebay. No release, no bueno.

[saratoga120]

Originally Posted by Far-L

What on earth would possess you to do even sell them on eBay without release? Does this mean you didn't make copies of IDs either? Do you live in the US? Do you realize how completely huge your exposure to liability is right now?

Well, the obvious answer is naievete. Correct about the IDs. I do live in the States. I don't realize my exposure to liability. I'd appreciate it if you would explain why the informal written agreement between the model and me would not release me from liability.

If you haven't read through the thread, allow me to reiterate.

The starlets all agreed to do the custom video with the proviso that I could sell it on eBay periodically, which was informally agreed to as a couple of times a year. This can be demonstrated from my email correspondence with them.

It was suggested here that I might also be exposed to criminal liability. If anyone knows if this is so, I would gratefully welcome their insights.

But if this is so, wouldn't the starlet also have that same problem? And wouldn't it likely deter her from pressing litigation?

[Jim_Gunn]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

It was suggested here that I might also be exposed to criminal liability. If anyone knows if this is so, I would gratefully welcome their insights.

But if this is so, wouldn't the starlet also have that same problem? And wouldn't it likely deter her from pressing litigation?

If you don't have IDs and 2257 forms properly filed according to very strict criteria you run afoul of Federal law, completely separately from whatever problems you might have with the models. Stop trying to find a way to scrape together two nickels from your half assed attempt at being a pornographer before you get yourself in trouble.

[ilnjscb]

These guys can seem harsh on newbies sometimes but paperwork and testing are the serious business of adult work. The trouble is, whenever someone comes in and ignores (or just isn't aware of) these rules and it does wind up in the press it paints the whole industry with negative sentiment.

You've got some really big names giving you advice here. If you are serious, learn the laws, insist on rigorous testing, and get back on the horse. Do it right this time.

[woj]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

Well, the obvious answer is naievete. Correct about the IDs. I do live in the States. I don't realize my exposure to liability. I'd appreciate it if you would explain why the informal written agreement between the model and me would not release me from liability.

If you haven't read through the thread, allow me to reiterate.

The starlets all agreed to do the custom video with the proviso that I could sell it on eBay periodically, which was informally agreed to as a couple of times a year. This can be demonstrated from my email correspondence with them.

It was suggested here that I might also be exposed to criminal liability. If anyone knows if this is so, I would gratefully welcome their insights.

But if this is so, wouldn't the starlet also have that same problem? And wouldn't it likely deter her from pressing litigation?

there is nothing to explain dude, 10 people told you your content is worthless... it is..
chalk it up to lesson learned, and next time spend a few bucks on legal advice before hand to make sure your paperwork is in order...

the only possible hope of monetizing it is to sell it to some ex-gf type site, but with no docs, you would get fuck all for it... not worth the drama...

[saratoga120]

Ok gentleman. I am looking and listening carefully and appreciative of the time you are taking with me on this. Some of you might think I'm being obdurate, but I'm really trying to distinguish between that which is law, and that which is law that gets enforced.

So in that spirit, what might motivate the feds to make a federal case of hardcore porno with name-brand stars which does not include a 2257 disclaimer if it is clear that the participants are both in middle age?

And secondly, would a model sue for damages knowing she'd have to expose herself as a prostitute in order to collect?

[RevSand]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

And secondly, would a model sue for damages knowing she'd have to expose herself as a prostitute in order to collect?

Yes! You already said they are name girls you got privates with. Odds are you did not pay the girls full shooting rate and the girls are normally bright enough to know that if there is no paperwork filled out you can do nothing with it.

Enjoy the footage in your spankbank and leave it there.

[notinmybackyard]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

If you have no model release you are a fucking MORON to put the content for sale anywhere any one of those girls could bend you over and clean out your assets.

My advice...start over with model releases

Agreed
But unfortunately if this sort of thing happens all the time and 99% of the time nothing comes of it.

[saratoga120]

Originally Posted by RevSand

Yes! You already said they are name girls you got privates with. Odds are you did not pay the girls full shooting rate and the girls are normally bright enough to know that if there is no paperwork filled out you can do nothing with it.

Enjoy the footage in your spankbank and leave it there.

The girls were all paid in excess of industry rate, usually in excess of their escorting rate. I'm not sure why this is relevant, though.

[saratoga120]

Originally Posted by notinmybackyard

Agreed
But unfortunately if this sort of thing happens all the time and 99% of the time nothing comes of it.

This is the opinion I am looking for. Not so much as because it is encouraging, but because it provides some real-life perspective on the situation.

But if the odds are 1% of criminal liability, I still don't like them.

Can others cite examples of an enterprise such as mine leading them down a path they wish they never set foot upon?

Again, it's important to note that there is absolutely no danger of anyone regarding the starlets as anything other than mature MILFs.

As far as potential civil damages go, I will have incorporated before releasing any of this material. The corporation will not be a sham, obviously designed to protect me from liability -- I will have a full stock of other, legally-obtained footage that will regularly be brought to market.

In this light, are my personal assets still vulnerable?

And, sorry to jump around, but what of stills, which show nothing more than female nudity? Again, I've photographed a mini treasure trove of girls in this context. No second parties in the photos, indeed no penetration of any kind. Do the same 2257 laws pertain to material of this nature?

I realize I'm leaning heavily on you guys to steer me right now. It's not for want of trying elsewhere. The web in surprisingly unhelpful. I can't even come close to getting a document to address something as simple as "obscenity law" and "{my state}." To add insult to possible injury, I couldn't even get a call back from a first-amendment lawyer after I informed his secretary that my inquiry regarded pornography in the jurisdiction and its permissible limits.

I suppose a trip to the law library is in order, but if anyone would like to recommend good source material, I'd devour it.

[ilnjscb]

Adult Film Industry Regulations

[saratoga120]

Thank you. Very much obliged.

[saratoga120]

Ok, somewhat helpful, especially in focusing on obscenity being a local matter. I think I'll ask one of my stripper friends to obtain the name of the firm representing her employer and hope that's a direct route to ascertaining the legality of what I'm currently shooting.

Otherwise, this passage was interesting to me:

On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech.[1] However the US DoJ, then under the control of US Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, asked for, and was granted, an en banc review of the initial decision of the 6th Circuit Court in order to see if the initial decision should be overturned.[2] The 6th Circuit en banc review is currently unscheduled.

As I read this, my failure to have records of the starlets I've shot and performed with is not necessarily burdensome, particularly as there is no legitimate question as to their being of legal age.

Is my interpretation fair?

[notinmybackyard]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

This is the opinion I am looking for. Not so much as because it is encouraging, but because it provides some real-life perspective on the situation.

But if the odds are 1% of criminal liability, I still don't like them.

Can others cite examples of an enterprise such as mine leading them down a path they wish they never set foot upon?

Again, it's important to note that there is absolutely no danger of anyone regarding the starlets as anything other than mature MILFs.

As far as potential civil damages go, I will have incorporated before releasing any of this material. The corporation will not be a sham, obviously designed to protect me from liability -- I will have a full stock of other, legally-obtained footage that will regularly be brought to market.

In this light, are my personal assets still vulnerable?

And, sorry to jump around, but what of stills, which show nothing more than female nudity? Again, I've photographed a mini treasure trove of girls in this context. No second parties in the photos, indeed no penetration of any kind. Do the same 2257 laws pertain to material of this nature?

I realize I'm leaning heavily on you guys to steer me right now. It's not for want of trying elsewhere. The web in surprisingly unhelpful. I can't even come close to getting a document to address something as simple as "obscenity law" and "{my state}." To add insult to possible injury, I couldn't even get a call back from a first-amendment lawyer after I informed his secretary that my inquiry regarded pornography in the jurisdiction and its permissible limits.

I suppose a trip to the law library is in order, but if anyone would like to recommend good source material, I'd devour it.

I am going to tell you another thing that you might not have considered.

The old ways of the porn industry are slowly coming back. By that I mean the old fashioned attitude of to hell with the legal system and hand the boyfriend a baseball bat. And this is coming about because gouvernments and police do nothing to prevent people like you from trying to find ways to make a dollar while being a big asshole.

A good knee breaking has not happened yet but it will.
And when that happens and others wake up to the fact that the police care even less about some asshole that posted illegal home made hooker porn then they do about the civil rights of a wife beater... It will be hunting season on knees and I will be the first to start a tube site called "fucker had it coming.com"

So please post those videos and perhaps we can see something even more interesting than your "not for publication for private use only" home made hooker porn.

Maybe I can even help this along.
I think I will look for a web designer and open a "fucker has it coming wikileaks." Anyone interested in meeting to discuss this project ?

[saratoga120]

Nice. Is that picture of you?

[NWB Guy]

Here is an approach that you probably have not considered.

There is a way to monetize the content without legal risk or moral issues.

Get the necessary paperwork and have each model sign the release and 2257 documents. Offer them a couple hundred bucks. They will be happy and you will have the rights to sell it.

[saratoga120]

Originally Posted by NWB Guy

Here is an approach that you probably have not considered.

There is a way to monetize the content without legal risk or moral issues.

Get the necessary paperwork and have each model sign the release and 2257 documents. Offer them a couple hundred bucks. They will be happy and you will have the rights to sell it.

Thank you. This is what I currently do without exception. But if you read through the thread you will see that's not the nature of my inquiry.

[notinmybackyard]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

Thank you. This is what I currently do without exception. But if you read through the thread you will see that's not the nature of my inquiry.

Here is a radical idea that might work.
Try telephoning the women and asking them to sign the releases and provide copies of ID.

It just might be easier than all this sneaking around.

[saratoga120]

It is an excellent idea. And I have done so where possible (5 of the 6). One requested I not show it, which I will respect. The other four did not respond.

[fitzmulti]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

Thanks Mike. That does add another dimension if I read you correctly. Could I be exposed to criminal liability by this?

"Could you be?"
I am surprised you haven't been yet...

[saratoga120]

Originally Posted by fitzmulti

"Could you be?"
I am surprised you haven't been yet...

You've got the ball. Run with it. Why would law enforcement take an interest in my situation.

[mikesouth]

You are looking at both criminal and civil issues

for starters not having the IDs is a potential criminal charge...one you would lose

not having the model releases is a copyright/trademark infringement lawsuit, exposing you to 75,000 civil judgement PER violation.

There isnt space here to school you in the criminal and civil statutes involved here but suffice it to say no attorney would ever tell you that you should do this

[saratoga120]

Thanks Mike. Do you know of any criminal prosecutions for what you've outlined above, excepting for cases involving minors, bestiality, bondage, etc. (In other words sex that wouldn't generally run afoul of any decency tests).

Similarly, can you cite any examples which parallel mine in which a starlet sued, won, and was awarded $75,000 because the producer did not have her signed permission to photograph or video her in pornographic situations?

Not put forth as argument. Still trying to acquire as many facts as I can.

[Jim_Gunn]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

Thanks Mike. Do you know of any criminal prosecutions for what you've outlined above, excepting for cases involving minors, bestiality, bondage, etc. (In other words sex that wouldn't generally run afoul of any decency tests).

Here- let me help you and tell you what you want to hear since it's obvious you intend to do whatever you want anyway: Everything will be ok. We're all overly cautious nervous nellies. Some of us producers posting in this tread are clearly just jealous and scared of you as competition. I'm sure you'll fly under the radar and not draw any law enforcement attention or lawsuits whatsoever by publishing adult content of escort trysts without permission, model releases, 2257 statements or IDs. So there's your green light! I'll look forward to seeing you collecting your trophy at the next AVN show!

[saratoga120]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

Here- let me help you and tell you what you want to hear since it's obvious you intend to do whatever you want anyway: Everything will be ok. We're all overly cautious nervous nellies. Some of us producers posting in this tread are clearly just jealous and scared of you as competition. I'm sure you'll fly under the radar and not draw any law enforcement attention or lawsuits whatsoever by publishing adult content of escort trysts without permission, model releases, 2257 statements or IDs. So there's your green light! I'll look forward to seeing you collecting your trophy at the next AVN show!

No, no, no! You misunderstand! If the danger is real here, that I do want to know.

Conjecture is fine. Familiarity with the statutes is greatly appreciated.

But what will, in the final analysis, best inform my judgment is precedent.

Make no mistake. I'm being swayed by all of your generously-offered opinions. What would persuade me to take your admonitions truly to heart would be some sort of illustration of not how this could go wrong, but how it has gone wrong.

[DAMNMAN]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear, but there were no model releases filled out, except in one case in which it was a spur of the moment document I typed up and the model signed.

The only evidence of consent to market the material are the email exchanges.

No model releases is a huge problem and if they decide to take you to court y'er fucked.

I personally would be worried about not having IDs and 2257 documents. NO ID shots and 2257 keep according to law and posted and you just violated.

[DAMNMAN]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

Thanks guys. Your responses have been soberingly effective.

Follow up question: Do I still run a risk if I limit the marketing of the video to what was agreed upon in writing (email), that being an occasional pop on eBay.

FAP to it your own damn self!!!!! That's it.

[saratoga120]

Originally Posted by DAMNMAN

No model releases is a huge problem and if they decide to take you to court y'er fucked.

I personally would be worried about not having IDs and 2257 documents. NO ID shots and 2257 keep according to law and posted and you just violated.

For the time being, I am more interested in whether the commercial release of such footage exposes me to criminal prosecution rather than civil liability.

I know it seems I'm beating a decomposed horse here, but others are joining the conversation late, so please bear with us.

Could someone please wrack their brains for an example of a porn distributor being prosecuted for flouting these laws, where the material itself was not objectionable, insofar that it depicts acts of lovemaking between consenting adults that do not include themes such as pain or restraint?

[fitzmulti]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

You've got the ball. Run with it. Why would law enforcement take an interest in my situation.

Could someone please wrack their brains for an example of a porn distributor being prosecuted for flouting these laws, where the material itself was not objectionable, insofar that it depicts acts of lovemaking between consenting adults that do not include themes such as pain or restraint?

Uhmmm...even IF you forget the Feds...
What if the GIRL sues you for usage....the emails won't mean SHIT, because you have NO ID's, NO model release, no legitimate "signed" documents authorizing the use of the content.
I have been shooting adult material for TWENTY YEARS, and I don't "take the ball and run with it".

You are asking for opinions and advice....why the hell are you arguing with all of us?

I, as well, as some others {I am sure} have been approached by models years later, asking for content to be removed, used no longer, etc...and without the proper documents, they'd be able to win...but, the one {who recently} has tried that...has no, and I mean ZERO, legs to stand on....and her legs are gorgeous, by the way! ;-)

[Jim_Gunn]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

For the time being, I am more interested in whether the commercial release of such footage exposes me to criminal prosecution rather than civil liability.

I know it seems I'm beating a decomposed horse here, but others are joining the conversation late, so please bear with us.

Could someone please wrack their brains for an example of a porn distributor being prosecuted for flouting these laws, where the material itself was not objectionable, insofar that it depicts acts of lovemaking between consenting adults that do not include themes such as pain or restraint?

Nope, there has never been a pornographer that has run afoul of the law or gone to prison for making movies with themes that did not include pain or restraint. Go right ahead you have nothing to worry about!

[notinmybackyard]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

Here- let me help you and tell you what you want to hear since it's obvious you intend to do whatever you want anyway: Everything will be ok. We're all overly cautious nervous nellies. Some of us producers posting in this tread are clearly just jealous and scared of you as competition. I'm sure you'll fly under the radar and not draw any law enforcement attention or lawsuits whatsoever by publishing adult content of escort trysts without permission, model releases, 2257 statements or IDs. So there's your green light! I'll look forward to seeing you collecting your trophy at the next AVN show!

Yes this is just the situation
The guy is a fucking punter and he has some wet dream about being a pornstar/producer. What will happen is he is will upload his home made hooker porn and find out that a camera and a computer will not bring him wealth or pad his ego. So he will go back to his escort review forums and show off to the other punters what a big stud he is.

And it is on the escort review forums that I am hoping his adventure comes to a crashing end. Because we all know that many of these girls have pimp boyfriends, etc. So when the girl's phone starts ringing at 4am from another punter looking to do the same shit... Some angry pimp boyfriend is going to show up.

On that note,
I am already talking to a couple of webdesigners. Porn has not had anything new in a very long time and Bunting punters should sell real big.

[saratoga120]

Originally Posted by fitzmulti

Uhmmm...even IF you forget the Feds...
What if the GIRL sues you for usage....the emails won't mean SHIT, because you have NO ID's, NO model release, no legitimate "signed" documents authorizing the use of the content.
I have been shooting adult material for TWENTY YEARS, and I don't "take the ball and run with it".

You are asking for opinions and advice....why the hell are you arguing with all of us?

I, as well, as some others {I am sure} have been approached by models years later, asking for content to be removed, used no longer, etc...and without the proper documents, they'd be able to win...but, the one {who recently} has tried that...has no, and I mean ZERO, legs to stand on....and her legs are gorgeous, by the way! ;-)

Morning Fitz. I've read through the latest responses and though not much more clarity exists from the previous night, I would like to comment on yours.

Remember, we don't even know that the starlet would find the release of this material objectionable. Perhaps she never looked better.

But assuming she saw the video and her reaction was "ewwwwwwwww! I can't believe people are going to watch me fuck that old fat pimply little geek!" we can also assume her outrage might turn into an effort at restitution.

Would I consider such a venture worthwhile if my personal assets were vulnerable? No way.

Would I let her bankrupt a corporation I'll be setting up, whose sole business interest is to monetize material I've shot on clips4sale? Yes, I would do that.

Do you or any of the other (mostly) helpful folks around here have insight into whether I'd only be risking the latter, but not the former?

I know I could go read a book, so tempting as that answer or some variation on it might be for a select few, you're liberated from having to say it.

[Jim_Gunn]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

Would I let her bankrupt a corporation I'll be setting up, whose sole business interest is to monetize material I've shot on clips4sale? Yes, I would do that.

Do you or any of the other (mostly) helpful folks around here have insight into whether I'd only be risking the latter, but not the former?
.

You have five lousy vanilla sex videos. You're not going to make more than a few shekels selling on Clips4Sale anyway. All this discussion, besides painting you as a reckless idiot, is a complete waste of time.

[fitzmulti]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

Morning Fitz. I've read through the latest responses and though not much more clarity exists from the previous night, I would like to comment on yours.

Remember, we don't even know that the starlet would find the release of this material objectionable. Perhaps she never looked better.

But assuming she saw the video and her reaction was "ewwwwwwwww! I can't believe people are going to watch me fuck that old fat pimply little geek!" we can also assume her outrage might turn into an effort at restitution.

Would I consider such a venture worthwhile if my personal assets were vulnerable? No way.

Would I let her bankrupt a corporation I'll be setting up, whose sole business interest is to monetize material I've shot on clips4sale? Yes, I would do that.

Do you or any of the other (mostly) helpful folks around here have insight into whether I'd only be risking the latter, but not the former?

I know I could go read a book, so tempting as that answer or some variation on it might be for a select few, you're liberated from having to say it.

Seriously...and I mean this as kindly as I can POSSIBLY say this:
You clearly ain't gettin' it.

So, go do whatever the hell you want, since you are not taking any advice, whatsoever, for any of us. What you risk, without having any legit documentation, is being sued by the chicks you shot...potentially issues with the government...and none of that is worth it, because {read my lips} YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY LEGIT DOCUMENTS FOR WHATEVER YOU SHOT.

[saratoga120]

I don't disagree with your assessment Jim. There is an ancillary benefit, however, and that is that would bring traffic to my store. And, truth be told, I'm happy with the way the videos turned out and would like the erotica-consuming public to have a chance to enjoy them as well.

Thanks as always for your perspective.

[saratoga120]

Fitzy -- Again, I do appreciate your taking the time to share your concerns with me.

Perhaps this analogy might make what I'm striving to understand more apparent:

If you get in the way of a runner on his way from first to second you will be called for obstruction close to 100% of the time.

On a short single to leftcenter, if you block the plate before you have the ball with a runner coming home, you will be called for obstruction 0% of the time.

The rule, as written, should apply equally to each situation.

I'm getting replies here which focus entirely on the first baserunning example, but which don't account for the second one.

I do not question the credentials of anyone who is taking the time to engage me on this topic. Indeed your admonitions are obviously offered in a spirit of generosity. At the same time, however, I would hope that one among you might just spend a little more time by citing a case analogous to mine which ended up with a criminal prosecution, or with the starlet sueing for damages.

On that last point, it's worth positing the question: Would a starlet even bring such a case in the first place when it would be impossible to get around the fact that she illegally prostituted herself in order to provide the content of the production she's seeking damages for?

[notinmybackyard]

Originally Posted by saratoga120

I do not question the credentials of anyone who is taking the time to engage me on this topic. Indeed your admonitions are obviously offered in a spirit of generosity. At the same time, however, I would hope that one among you might just spend a little more time by citing a case analogous to mine which ended up with a criminal prosecution, or with the starlet sueing for damages.

On that last point, it's worth positing the question: Would a starlet even bring such a case in the first place when it would be impossible to get around the fact that she illegally prostituted herself in order to provide the content of the production she's seeking damages for?

Go pay for a fucking lawyer.
If you can spend money on film equipment, editing software and hookers then you can spend a couple bucks on a lawyer.

Otherwise go to hell because everyone here has made it all very clear what you should be doing and what the possible ramifications are legally (and perhaps as I pointed out physically as well) All you are doing right now is looking for an answear that is most to your liking. And it does NOT work like that.

So if you want to take a chance and be an asshole then shut up and go for it.

Because in the end you will either
* Get away with it...
* Or get caught and prosecuted....
* Or get your knees busted by some pimp boyfriend thereby allowing some greasy pornographer lurking in the dark (such as myself) to dream up ways to make a dollar off your back.

[saratoga120]

Sage advice NIMBY. And don't for a moment don't think I am ungrateful for your laying out the ramifications (particularly the last one, which I would certainly not have given the weight to that you are.)

I do intend to seek legal counsel. But in my part of the country it is unheard of to find someone specializing in Adult Entertainment law. And unfortunately my inquiry with a renowned specialist on the west coast yielded an unpromising "can't consult with you if you are outside of California" response.

I think my best bet is to try to hook up with the counsel representing the local strip clubs here and try to at least get a few of my more general legal questions answered.

Once again, thanks for your heartfelt response.

[PhoneMoney]

I rarely post here, but I just can't resist:

OP - instead of beating about the bush why don't you just post:

"I have this content, I have no docs. I am breaking the original verbal contract with them cause it's too much of a pain to get new/ they will probably be pissed. I am doing it anyway, I give two fucks about industry standards or morals - so just give me to worse case scenario or LOOPHOLE. Or tell me how to do it with the least case of bust. I know it's scumbaggy so I won't try to talk all business like to make you think I'm not."

See how easy that is? Oh, and I won't respond to you - not sure why others are actually invested in this. Google is your friend for legal cases you need to find out how much trouble you can get into, and the rest - get a lawyer - oh wait you can't cause he would tell you the LAW. Because in reality, your escort porn won't make enough to float that. Unless of course, you just plan on running that scam with other gals.... *cough cough*..........but you wouldn't, right?

And wtf is that about "considered" answers?

This whole thing is scuzzy. Your not clueless, your scuzzy.