Why is it legal to pay a girl to have sex with you in a video or pictures?
 

I've never understood why it's legal to pay a girl to fuck you on video or in pictures, but it is illegal to pay a girl to just fuck you normally (prostitution).

Any content producers care to explain this?

now that's an interesting question

dont forget they are actors. your paying someone to act. acting is legal.

Easy answer:

On video you are not paying the girl for the sexual act, but for the rights to the video/pictures.

Also, anything that is being recorded/videtaped/photographed can be considered of artistic value.

etc..

When you hire a prostitute.. u are hiring her for the sexual pleasure.. When you hire an escort u hire her for her 'companionship' and that is why escorts are legal and whores are not.

Thats why i always carry a model release form...

So maybe we could claim going with a hooker as an audition? Production expense?

Worth a try. (Some of the content I've come across looks like the line between actres and hooker (or crack whore) gets blurrier all the time.) hehe

If someone wants you busted you will get busted regardless of how many papers you sign.

But trial wise you have more chances of winning.

Regardless always wear condoms:-)

Technically you can.. but you need to have a video cam and a release.. with you... :winkwink:

LOL

Dont tell me u got busted for fuckin a prostitute, cmon!!!!!
Let's be realistic here :winkwink:

So if you walk up to a hooker on the street and say "I'll pay you $100 to fuck me", that is illegal.

BUT

If you walk up to the same hooker on the street and say "I'll pay you $100 to fuck me while I record it on video", that is legal?

easy answer... re read yourself again... very fuzzy answer....

by the way... escorts are whores with better teeth and looks.... companionship....?? yeah right thats all they do....hehe

BrownBear had a good question....
The reason prostitutes are illegal is for "morality" reasons...
why is it legal to shoot a porn film.... because public opinion still have a say in the law... and for whatever reasons... a porn film seems less offensive to some women since they know their husbands wont get a blowjob from them....!
(also.... Larry Flint helped.... and it wont take long for protitution in the form of escorts to be legalise in Canada.... btw)

True True - always get the hooker to sign a model release

I have been saying this for years

Fuzzy???

It is clear: THE REASON WHY IS LEGAL TO PAY A GIRL TO FUCK YOU ON FILM IS JUST THAT IS ON FILM! It is legal because you are not paying her to fuck u .. u are paying for the rights to the video.

No fuzz there...

And yes.. I know escorts.. fuck.. but the idea is that u pay for their companionship! :thumbsup

NO one can answer this!

It depends on local laws.
in most states it IS illegal to pay a girl to do anything sexuall
even video...
some bible belt states say
prostitution is the exchange of SEX (any form) for Money.
best answer is to contact your Local lawyer.

Actually... the real reason why there's a difference with the law right now.... Is since its a morality issue....
Some people think that there's a diffrence between paying pros having sex... for the "inocent pleasure of the viewer/no actual sex involing you"
and your average joe, husband, dad.... go see a prostitute whenever he feel the need.... (can be seen as an easy way to cheat on your wife)....

however... this is for the morality aspect.... which dont stand a chance in court with logical unbias judges....

and like I said... you'll see prostitution decriminalized in canada pretty soon... but under strict rules.... not because of morality but because of health reasons....

The difference between fucking a prostitue in private and fucking one on film, is not much, HOWEVER, when you PUBLISH that film of her getting fucked, you now bring in the 1st and 14th amendments.

It is the ACT of PUBLIHING the material that makes the difference.

Perhaps a lawyer would like to explain this to us in more detail?

For more information you might want to read through:

http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/06co...nal/cases.html

Miller V California might be especially importnant.

I amsure there is more to it, this is not a simple issue, but there is an answer . . .

and the reason why the ACT of PUBLIHING the material is ok... is pretty much what I said above.... but then.. im not a lawyer..

Well the way our lawyer described it to us is......

If you pay 2 actors to have sex on camera, it is fine. You are the producer and not one of the actors. You are not having sex. You are not paying to have sex.

Pay an actor to have sex with you on camera, it is prostitution. Regardless of the reason you are paying the actor.

Just my 2 cents.

Hugs,
Danielle

If that were true, then a guy like Ed Powers would have been locked up long ago. So I think there must be more to it than that.

Any decent content guy has these on hand at all times... Mine is sitting on my desk right now...

Its called Market Research

The dirty little secret of the porn movie industry is revealed. :Graucho

I am not sure I follow. The act of publishing is not "okay" because of moral issues, IMHO. In fact, many of the Justices are against pornogrphay, but because the Constitution defines ceriian rights, and the US law is based on precedent, the High Court finds its hands tied. They seem to have a hard time defining obcenity and preserving free speech; and free speech wins.

When you publish someting, you are making a statement, expressing an opinion, etc. If if that opion is unpleasant, the High Court has decided it is not the Gov't place to make that decision and supress it, for pornography the Miller test is applied.


So the real test is, is the act obscene. If so, out it goes, but if not, it is protected. When you fuck a whore, there is not expression in the public forum that would mandate any sort of protection, so you lose. If you film it and make it available in a public fourm, then that changes the whole picture, it has to be considered obscene before it loses protection.

The real issue, the legal issue, is the act of publishing. Publlished works have certian protections.

I don't write the law, or make the decisions, or even claim to have a total understanding of it, however, to the best of my knowledge, this is why adult videos are legal and fucking prositute in private is not.

if you're going to fuck a hooker, make sure you videotape it. you not only comply with the law, but you have content for next weeks galleries.

I guess Max Hardcore, Tom Byron, Ed Powers, Randy West, Lexington Steele, John Stagliano and countless others are in trouble? They all pay others to have sex with them on a regular baisis, and have for many years!

Not sure who your lawyer is, but you may want a second opinion.

Please free speech....?? Please...

If something is illegal, its suppose to be always illegal...!

If I kill someone, making a film about it wont change nothing...

free speach is denoncing or telling other about your opinions... not DOING the illegal act...

Like I said... the difference as to do with morality!!

LOL! Love some of the answers in this thread.

BUT!!!

Who here actually has a lawyer on retainer?

What has your LAWYER said about this?

Personally, the only person I am going to listen to is the person that would be defending me if I ever got charged for something.

It really depends on the laws in the state and or area it takes place. So depending on where this happens we could all be right or wrong.

So hire an attorney and follow his or her advise. He or she will be the one to keep you out of jail.

Hugs,
Danielle

damn, I wasn't aware that it was expressly legal in that many places. I thought it just wasnt something that prosecutors bothered going after all that often.

Though I do believe that Chatsworth is one of the places where it is expressly legal.

It has do with law, and lots of legal decisions.

For a nice introduction I suggest you read the cases at:

http://www.usscplus.com/online/subin....asp?subj=1243

Especially important in this discussion is California v. Freeman, No. A-602, Decided February 1, 1989, 488 U.S. 1311

It deals specifically with pornographic films and prostitution. As you will see, there are several other cases, not related to either, that play into the decsion.

"even if [Freeman's] conduct could somehow be found to come within the definition of "prostitution" literally, the application [488 U.S. 1313] of the pandering statute to the hiring of actors to perform in the production of a nonobscene motion picture would impinge unconstitutionally upon First Amendment values."

The Justices are very aware that simply filmimg and illegal act does not make it a legal act, O'Conner stated, "I recognize that the State has a strong interest in controlling prostitution within its jurisdiction and, at some point, it must certainly be true that otherwise illegal conduct is not made legal by being filmed."

She goes on to say:

"There is language early in the California Supreme Court's discussion section observing that:

the prosecution of [Freeman] under the pandering statute must be viewed as a somewhat transparent attempt at an "end run" around the First Amendment and the state obscenity laws. Landmark decisions of this court and the United States Supreme Court compel us to reject such an effort. "

Consitutional law is not so cut and dry, but it is clear that the High Court as decided, for now, that the importance of film as a medium for expression warrants it very siginifcant protections of free speech, enough to protect what would otherwise be considered an illegal act of prostitution under most states laws . . .

I rest my case.

I do, and I invited Larry to comment . . . however, he is usually not to keen on giving legal adivce on BBSs:1orglaugh

I think you can always look at it as you are paying them to sign the release to the picture and video rights of the recording.

Seems to be the logic I have heard all along.

this was how law enforcement tried to stomp out the burgeoning adult movie industry in California - pandering charges, pandering is 'procuring someone for the purpose of prostitution'. Thankfully the courts found that there is a difference between hiring somebody to perform sex acts for sexual gratification and hiring people to perform sex acts for purposes of creating a film/video.

I do wonder in this day of the Internet and gonzo porn whether some guy who roams the street with a video camera looking to hire a girl to take back to a motel room to have videotaped POV sex could have pandering charges brought against him successfully. I think the pandering charges could stick against some amateur porn makers.

It's not by accident that the 90% of the world's commercial porn video production takes place in the San Fernando Valley, Chatsworth in particular - not sure if Chatsworth is an incorporated city within Los Angeles or what and whether it passed a law making the production of porn legal ................but they flocked to Chatsworth because they knew they would be free from cops busting them on pandering charges.

I think pandering charges are a part of porn's past, you don't hear or see it any more, the Court was pretty clear that hiring somebody to make a movie was not prostitution so now they are back to using obscenity laws - and by the two most recent cases involving high profile porn producers, Seymore Butts and Max Hardcore, even those obscenity charges aren't sticking these days. Butts got his charge reduced to some piddly little thing and Max Hardcore got a hung jury, that case will be retried because the DA really wants a conviction against Max badly.

Yea, my attorney said the same thing but gonzo is huge