Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeSouth
Ok dragging this back on topic...
It isnt the camera that makes it "legal" its the model release. Technically I do not pay the girls to have sex, I pay them to sign their copyright of that performance over to me. Its a fine legal line and outside of Cali its a very gray area of the law, but thats how it was explained to me and thats how I explain it to whomever I am shooting.
And in reality its true, without that signed model release transferring that copyright to me, they don't get paid. If you dont understand how a performer owns a copyright of the performance as well as the photographer /videographer sharing that copyright then you need to brush up on that part of the law. Essentially without one signing their copyright over to the other, either via a model release or a photographers release neither one can use the content without the consent of the other.
For this reason I dont pay the performers and they dont sign the release until after the scene is shot.
|
Amen to this.
If you want to get right down to it, the presence of the camera (and the crew, dammit) changes the sex act in production from intimate to public, to display and performance. It's no longer sex, though it's sexual.
Kinda like saying, if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?
And actually, at least in Canada, what's illegal is the solicitation of money for sex (or sex for money?) that is illegal, not paying for sex, or getting paid for sex.
I had a potential client once who wanted to do some live video streaming from his swinger's club private rooms. These people are paying to join the club, paying to have an arena in which to swing-fuck, and paying to have their activities webcast...
Lawyers have sorry jobs and I pity them their chore....