Big vs. Small: What Laws Apply to Amateur Productions ?

Broken contract One of the most misunderstood aspects of “porn law” is whether certain laws, regulations and industry practices and customs apply to small amateur productions and/or couples versus the large mainstream porn production studios such as Brazzers, BangBros and LegalPorno.

The simple answer is most – if not all – of the same laws and regulations that apply to large mainstream studios also apply to the mom & pop (or husband & wife) or solo, POV producers – even those who only do content trades.

On numerous occasions I have heard from a potential client “oh that law is only for Brazzers that doesn’t affect my amateur productions.” That is simply not true. There is no distinction in any of the “porn laws” between large commercial mainstream studio productions and small amateur productions. Pornography is pornography and as long as you are creating hardcore content (anything involving penetration, even solo) then you are a pornographer, Hustler or Penthouse.

The most basic of the requirements of producing pornography is that a producer obtain model releases from everyone that appears in anyway in your video, whether you are paying that performer or simply trading services and/or content with them. If you do not have a model release you might lose your rights to sell that scene, clip or video.

The second regulation that all producers must comply with is 18 U.S.C. 2257 – the federal record keeping law. If you do not comply with this law for EVERY scene that you produce, you can face up to 5 years in jail. If you do require a copy of the personal identification of each and every performer that appears in your production, you are in violation of 2257.

If you hire models and/or performers and pay them to appear in your production, you must also comply with basic employment laws. That also applies to if you share revenue with your models/performers. In most states, workers compensation laws apply to employment situations. Which means that a production must have workers compensation insurance policy in effect when hiring models and performers. This usually applies even if you and model/performer believe and state in writing that the model/performer is an independent contractor. If a model/performer is injured on set, whether it’s a slip and fall or a sexual transmitted disease, the producer will be responsible for the injury.

Along with model/performers being employees for purposes of workers compensation, it should also be noted that they might also be employees for tax purposes and failure to pay the necessary payroll taxes on each model/performer can result in fines and penalties being levied against you or your production company. This situation has occurred with several of my clients over the years and in California the Franchise Tax Board has levied tens of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties on each one. For the models/performers, themselves, it should be noted that failure to pay taxes can result in the IRS levying fines and penalties as well. Over the years, numerous pornstars have been hit with audit letters from the IRS and later fines and penalties for failure to pay their taxes.

Another legal misperception is that if you pay for the content, you own it. That is not necessarily true as well. If your production company uses anyone to hold the camera, video camera, phone or tablet that records the scene, you must have them sign an assignment of rights giving you the rights to the scene, video or clip. Otherwise, they own the copyright to the material. This is true even if they are your partner or are legally married to them.

There is also the issue of the condom laws in California and other states. Most producers do not understand that according the CalOSHA, barrier protection is required for all productions in the state. Over the years several large and small production companies have been fined tens of thousands of dollars for failure to use barrier protection (condoms and dental dams) in their productions to prevent the transmission of bloodborne pathogens and sexually transmitted diseases.

Whether barrier protection is needed in other states is still an unanswered question. Though almost every state has some type of law or employment regulation that indicates that an employee cannot be exposed, even accidentally, to diseases while at work.

I could author another 10 to 20 pages on everything you need to know as a producer, even if you are only producing content for distribution on sites such as OnlyFans, ManyVids, Clips4Sale, SnapChat or your own ModelCentro website. As long as you produce content, you are a pornographer and the same laws apply to you as they do to Hustler, Penthouse, BangBros, LegalPorn or Brazzers ect.,

Failure to comply can mean serious jail time, fines and/or liability to you personally.

Whether you are thinking about becoming a content producer or already are, I highly recommend my 4-hour seminar wherein I cover the following topics;

DMCA and Copyright Law

Trademark Law & Federal Registration

Right to Publicity and Privacy

The Legal Difference Between Porn and Prostitution

Workers Compensation Law

Liability & Production Insurance

18 USC 2257 and 28 CFR 75.1

Registering Domain Names & Cybersquatting

Model Release Agreements & other Production Agreements

Independent Contract vs. Employee Issues

Filming Permits & Condom Permits

Recruiting, Hiring and Working with Performers

Employment Law Issues

Payroll Tax Issues

Health, Safety, STD Testing an OSHA Issues

Acquiring Credit Card Processing

Dealing with User Uploaded Content & the CDA section 230

Setting up an Affiliate Program

Producing Content in “Grey” States

The seminar is offered to individuals or companies. However, if you would like to put together a small group of producer/performers, I can offer the same seminar at a group rate.

October 7, 2019 0

Porn 101: Choosing an Agent – Part 1

Once you have made the choice to get into the adult industry the next step is making the decision as to whether you need an agent and who that agent will be. Who you choose as your agent is probably one of the most important decisions you will make as performer. Your agent will shape your career and be able to use their mainstream and industry connections to help you further your career. Your agent will be the person within the industry that you have the most contact with at first. Therefore, its important that you choose your agent carefully and research who you may be hiring to represent you. Talk to other performers about their agent(s). Twitter makes it quite easy to approach and ask other performers in the industry what they like or do not like about their agent(s). And make sure you get more then one opinion.

After choosing an agent you will have to decide whether you will relocate to Los Angeles or will you simply visit Los Angeles and work while you are there. Living in Los Angeles or traveling there will make a difference in not only how much work you can expect but also what your life will be like and how your career will proceed. From a career perspective, living in Los Angeles will probably result in more work since you can be booked at the last minute if another performer isn’t available, refuses the job offer or “no-shows.” However, living in Los Angeles is probably much more expensive than where you may live now. Also, living in Los Angeles will allow to you develop relationships, business and personal, with producers, directors and other performers that may help and assist with how your career proceeds.

I would recommend that anyone seeking an agent in Los Angeles chose only a licensed and bonded talent agent. In California, all agents are required by state law to be licensed and bonded. Also, any agent booking work for talent in California also has to be licensed and bonded in California. Even if your agent is located in New York and that agent is booking work for you in Los Angeles, they too must be licensed and bonded in California. You can check to see which agents are licensed and bonded by searching on this database -> http://www.dir.ca.gov/databases/dlselr/talag.html

Who’s Licensed & Bonded ?

According the Licensed Adult Talent Agency Trade Association ( Please see: http://www.latata.org ) the provide a list of agents that are currently licensed and bonded in adult entertainment in California.

The agents on LATATA.org is merely provided as a starting point for your own research. Choose the agent that will best serve your needs as an performer. If you are an agent and want to know how to become licensed and bonded in California please see http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Talent_Agency_License.html )

What’s a Talent Agent Contract Look Like ?

As a licensed and bonded agent, your agent is only allowed to use a pre-approved Talent Agency Agreement. A California Labor Commissioner MUST pre-approve and stamp all talent agency contracts. A sample of the current Labor Commissioner approved contract can be found here -> Talent_Exclusive_Contract

If your agent hands you a contract that does not look the above contract, has additional pages or is not approved by the state of California Labor Commissioner that is not a valid talent-agent contract and you should not sign it. As a part of being licensed and bonded, every agent is required to have any changes or additions to the standard contract approved by the Labor Commissioner before providing it to talent to sign. Without such approval those pages or parts are not enforceable.

However, your agent may ask you to sign a model release and a 2257 document to place your photographs on their website. Those are acceptable to sign since your agent will need your agreement to start promoting your pictures on their website.

As a rule, your agent should provide you will copies of everything you have signed so make sure you receive copies for your records. If your agent does not provide a copy make sure you take a photograph of every page of the contract with your phone and keep those photos for your records in case you need them in the future.

How Much Do I Pay My Agent ?

If your agent is not licensed and bonded they cannot receive a fee for booking you work. Often people will claim to be managers and or publicist and attempt to book work for you. If they do, legally they cannot take a fee for doing so. Only licensed and bonded agents may collect a fee for booking work for you. The fees an agent may charge is not limited however the standard in the adult entertainment industry is between 10-20% of the total gross fee paid to the performer for each job secured. The amount of fees that the agent will charge you must be stated on the talent agency contract.

If you would like to research the laws pertaining to talent agents in the state of California please see -> http://www.agentassociation.com/frontdoor/agency_licensing_detail.cfm?id=572

In my next article on this subject I will discussed living in Los Angeles, what you can expect from your talent agent and what they are allowed and not allowed to do.

September 26, 2012 0

A Good Example of Why Talent Should Read Model Releases

By now most of the world has heard of the film “Innocence of Muslims.” The clips of this movie prompted widespread violence and anti-American demonstrations across much of the Muslim world.

Video clips of the movie were initially uploaded to YouTube in July 2012. Videos dubbed in the Arabic language were uploaded during early September 2012. On September 9, 2012, an excerpt of the YouTube video was broadcast on an Egyptian Islamist television station. Demonstrations and violent protests against the film broke out on September 11 in Egypt and Libya, and spread to other Arab and Muslim nations and some western countries. On September 11, 2012 an armed attack occurred on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya in which the U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed ( Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_muslims )

Originally titled “Desert Warrior” and shot in English. The film was transformed into the “Innocence of Muslims” by dubbing over certain lines in the movie and adding references to the Prophet Muhammad. This was obviously not what the actors had intended by their participation in the production.

So what does this have to do with porn ?

On Thursday, September 20, 2012, a Los Angeles judge denied one of the movie’s stars lawsuit to remove the videos from YouTube (Please see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/actress-in-anti-muslim-movie-sues-for-its-removal-online-sues-filmmaker-for-fraud/2012/09/19/694e5cd0-02b7-11e2-9132-f2750cd65f97_story.html ). Without going into the legal analysis of why the judge denied her request what is important is the fact that this occurred in the first place.

What allowed the producer to dub over the actors’ voices was the model release and the fact that there was probably a clause in that model release giving the producer the right to do whatever he/she wanted with the movie. Now, many of those involved with the production of movie or starred in the movie are receiving death threats.

However, we may never know what the model release said since the actress who filed the lawsuit, Cindy Lee Garcia, admitted she didn’t have a copy of the model release.

In the day of the smart phones with cameras there is absolutely no reason for a performer not to have a copy/photo of every page of every model release, contract and talent agency agreement they are asked to sign. Performers should simply take photographs of the documents and keep them in their phone or email the photographs to themselves, organize them and save them on their computer. You may never know when you will need such a copy as I am sure Cindy Lee Garcia now wishes she had.

My point is not that a performer’s starring role in “Babyz Got Huge Backsides” will be turned into a religious movie that sparks international controversy but rather a performer should not end up like Cindy Lee Garcia, in court fighting about a contract dispute without a copy of the contract he/she signed.

All producers should readily provide a copy of the model release and 2257 documentation for talent. If they do not it might be simply because there is no copy machine available on set. A simple photograph of the contract can achieve the same purpose. If someone does not want to provide a performer a copy of the contract, now that’s a different issue and perhaps that performer should question their motives for not giving them a copy. In those cases I would recommend that a performer not sign anything until they allowed the right to photograph all pages of the contract.

September 24, 2012 0

The Problem with Producing Porn Outside California…

Yesterday the “No on Government Waste Committee” held a press conference at Manwin’s headquarters in Burbank ( http://www.xbiz.com/news/154272 ). During the press conference Valley Industry Commerce Association President Stuart Waldman (who is an attorney) made the following quote;

“This is a Los Angeles County ordinance. What would prevent companies from moving to another county to produce films — Ventura County, San Bernardino County? What would keep them from following their brethren to Nevada, Florida or wherever else production companies are doing business? Some states would provide economic incentives for the industry to relocate.

While it is possible that the industry may relocate to a different county in California there are problems with the industry relocating to another state. Currently, the production of hardcore pornography is only legally protected in two states, California and New Hampshire ( Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Freeman and http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/nh-supreme-court-rules-porn-not-prostitution ). Those are the only two states that have state Supreme Court cases that have held that the production of pornography is NOT prostitution and/or pandering and is rather a First Amendment free speech right. This is why the adult entertainment industry is a legal and recognized business within California.

In all other states hardcore pornography production is a tricky legal situation. Not only because of possible criminal penalties or prosecution but because of the validity of the model releases. One of the standard contracts in adult entertainment is the model release. It’s the contract that every performer is required to sign to release their rights to the producer to forever use their images and videos for all purposes all over the world. Basically, the model release is the foundation of the entire industry. A signed model release by the performers allow the release of the scene or movie to the public for sale.

The issue to be concerned with as a producer is the enforceability of a hardcore model release. If a company produces hardcore pornography outside of California the model release might not be valid under the theory of “lawful object.” Meaning that the basis of the contract must be a lawful activity. It is clear that two people could not contract for the sale of a kilo of cocaine since the distribution of cocaine is an illegal activity. No court in the United States would enforce a contract for the distribution of cocaine.

At the heart of every hardcore pornography model release is the exchange of sex for money. While some may claim that the contract is actually for a release of rights that is not a complete view of the model release contract in regards to hardcore pornography production. For the most part, courts do not allow the exchange of sex for money to be the basis of contract. It is all most all states it is legally clear that sex cannot be the consideration of a contract. Besides hardcore pornography in California another exception to this rule is legal prostitution only in Nevada brothels (except in Clark County which includes Las Vegas).

Any contract that is based on an illegal activity would be considered void and unenforceable in a court. In other words – useless. That might leave a producer open to numerous lawsuits and costs for defending such. Without a valid model release that a court is willing to enforce the producer is left in the situation of not having a model release at all ( Please see: http://georgetownlawjournal.org/articles/sexual-reconsideration-adult-entertainment-contracts-and-the-problem-of-enforceability/ )

Without a model release the producer and the performer basically become partners in the profits of the scene. As a partner, the producer may then need to pay profits to the model instead of just a one time fee. In every model release is a paragraph that waives the performer’s rights to publicity. A performer’s right to publicity is an inherent right. Everyone has the right to determine how and for what purposes our image, likeness and names are used for commercial purposes. Without a release no one can use someone’s image to sell a product, good or service without paying that person a percentage of the profit made. That is exactly what a model release does. It says for $1000.00 (or whatever the scene rate may be) that the producer has the right to do whatever he/she wants with a performer’s image, likeness or name for whatever purpose they want to. Without that paragraph the producer then has to pay to the performer a percentage of profit.

In California this theory is set out in California Civil Code section 3344;

(a)Any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing such profits, the injured party or parties are required to present proof only of the gross revenue attributable to such use, and the person who violated this section is required to prove his or her deductible expenses. Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties. The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.

Many states have statutes similar to the California Civil Code section 3344. Florida, Illinois, Hawaii and Minnesota have even a more restrictive law to the production of hardcore pornography then most other states. In Florida, prostitutes are legally allowed to sue their pimps for profits of their labor. In Florida hardcore pornography production is still considered prostitution and pandering. For example, Florida statute section 796.07 defines prostitution as;

796.07 Prohibiting prostitution, etc.; evidence; penalties; definitions.—

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Prostitution” means the giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire but excludes sexual activity between spouses.

The production of hardcore pornography is not excluded specifically in the definition and therefore it must be assumed to be included. Even more damaging to hardcore production in Florida is the actual language of section 796.09 which states that the exploitation of a pornographic performance is actual coercion under the law;

796.09: Coercion; civil cause of action; evidence; defenses; attorney’s fees(1) A person has a cause of action for compensatory and punitive damages against:

(a) A person who coerced that person into prostitution;

(b) A person who coerces that person to remain in prostitution; or

(c) A person who uses coercion to collect or receive any part of that person’s earnings derived from prostitution.

(2) As used in this section, the term “prostitution” has the same meaning as in s. 796.07.

(3) As used in this section, the term “coercion” means any practice of domination, restraint, or inducement for the purpose of or with the reasonably foreseeable effect of causing another person to engage in or remain in prostitution or to relinquish earnings derived from prostitution, and includes, but is not limited to:

(a) Physical force or threats of physical force.

(b) Physical or mental torture.

(d) Blackmail.

(e) Extortion or claims of indebtedness.

(f) Threat of legal complaint or report of delinquency.

(g) Threat to interfere with parental rights or responsibilities, whether by judicial or administrative action or otherwise.

(h) Promise of legal benefit.

(i) Promise of greater financial rewards.

(j) Promise of marriage.

(k) Restraint of speech or communication with others.

(l) Exploitation of a condition of developmental disability, cognitive limitation, affective disorder, or substance dependency.

(m) Exploitation of victimization by sexual abuse.

(n) Exploitation of pornographic performance.

(o) Exploitation of human needs for food, shelter, safety, or affection.

(4) In the course of litigation under this section, any transaction about which a plaintiff testifies or produces evidence does not subject such plaintiff to criminal prosecution or any penalty or forfeiture. Further, any testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, or information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or evidence which is given or produced by a plaintiff or a witness for a plaintiff shall not be used against these persons in any other investigation or proceeding. Such testimony or evidence, however, may be used against a plaintiff or a witness for a plaintiff upon any criminal investigation or proceeding for perjury committed while giving such testimony or producing such evidence.

(5) It does not constitute a defense to a complaint under this section that:

(a) The plaintiff was paid or otherwise compensated for acts of prostitution;

(b) The plaintiff engaged in acts of prostitution prior to any involvement with the defendant; or

(c) The plaintiff made no attempt to escape, flee, or otherwise terminate contact with the defendant.

(6) Evidence of convictions for prostitution or prostitution-related offenses are inadmissible in a proceeding brought under this section for purposes of attacking the plaintiff’s credibility.

(7) In any action brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award prevailing plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Therefore in Florida, producers do not only have to worry about the validity of their model releases but Florida specifically has created a law that can be applied to performers suing producers for profits. And a producer will not be able to use the fact that the performer did the scene willingly, that the performer actually worked for that producer before and did everything in the scene voluntarily and with consent. The signed model release may even be excluded as evidence from the trial. Those claims are not even a valid defense to this law. And ultimately not only would the producer have to pay the performer profits the producer would also have to pay the performer’s attorney’s fees outside the award to the performer.

While it may be desirable, in light of the condom laws in California, for the industry to move to a different state such as Nevada, Florida or Arizona doing so comes with much risks to the producers.

September 21, 2012 0

Model Releases

http://www.xbiz.com/articles/18924/fattorosi

It is likely that all of you reading this article who are in the business of producing adult content or performing as talent, whether it’s for DVD distribution or for website and Internet broadcast, have had to draft or sign model-release contracts.

From my experience this simple contract often is overlooked by content producers and talent alike. This doesn’t mean that they are not used in the industry; instead I mean that many do not spend much time drafting them, or in the case of talent, reading them. Who likes to read contracts? The answer is no one, not even attorneys, unless we are getting paid to do so. I recently rented storage space in Chatsworth, Calif., and was presented with the standard lease to sign. Did I read it? Hell no. Why bother? But this is an article of “do as I say” and not “do as I do.”

The model release is the core contract of every adult content shoot. It’s what allows the right of publicity to be transferred from the model to the content producer. This allows the photographer or videographer, or whomever he assigns his rights to, the ability to publish that video or photograph for commercial, moneymaking purposes. Failure to secure a signed model release would make it extremely risky for any producer to use that model’s image for commercial purposes.

I would even go so far as to state that based on the recent criminal case involving Cameron Diaz and a forged model release, I would suggest that all producers secure not only a signed release but also a witnessed signed release. As with any contract, a witness will always help establish your evidence supporting the validity of the release in case litigation later occurs.

John Rutter’s Role
Diaz at 19 posed for some explicit topless photos for John Rutter, a well-known photographer at the time. Eleven years later and just prior to her ascent to stardom for her role in “Charlie’s Angels,” Rutter approached Diaz about purchasing the photographs from him for $3.5 million or he would sell them to other purchasers for a tendered offer of $5 million.

Apparently, Rutter attempted to portray Diaz as the “bad angel” and profit off her upcoming movie premiere. Rutter claimed to have a valid model release signed by Diaz at the time the pictures were taken. Although it appears that the original photo shoot was a content trade where Diaz was provided copies for her agreement to pose for the pictures, she obviously denied that she ever provided a signed release to Rutter to use the photos for commercial purposes and declined his offer to purchase them.

In order to prevent Rutter from selling photographs of her, Diaz filed a civil lawsuit. During the case, Rutter presented and offered into evidence a signed model release, which he claimed was executed by Diaz. The police executed a search warrant and seized evidence from Rutter’s studio and home. Rutter was then charged with theft, forgery and perjury (based on statements made by Rutter, under oath, that Diaz’s signature was not a forgery). Eventually the case moved to the trial phase and expert witnesses were called in to authenticate the signature. Long story short, Rutter was convicted and is currently serving a four-year prison sentence. His appeal has been denied based on his forgery of Diaz’s signature on the model release and his perjurious statements regarding their authenticity.

The moral of the story is get your releases witnessed, if at all possible, so that a performer can never make a claim that you actually forged his or her signature. And if you ever even consider forging a performer’s signature on a model release — don’t do it! Even if that performer calls you and says it’s OK to do so. While obviously Diaz’s clout helped get the matter investigated and prosecuted, do not believe for a moment that you as an adult content producer would be immune from the same prosecution.

On the other side, if you are a performer and believe that a content producer is using your photographs or videos without a release — whether you want to call the police and get them involved or not — you certainly will want to contact an attorney and have them send a cease-and-desist letter to the producer informing them that you are challenging their use of your images and requesting compensation for their past use. If they fail to respond, then your next option would be to institute legal action against the production company as well as anyone else using your images.

Taster’s Choice Case
OK, if that hasn’t convinced you, let’s talk about the Taster’s Choice case. So you have a signed release, you’ve paid the performer, everything is great — right? Not exactly. On Jan. 27, 2005, a California jury awarded $15.6 million to a former model whose picture was used without his permission on Taster’s Choice coffee product labels. Russell Christoff posed for a photo shoot in 1986 for $250 and signed a modeling contract stating that he would be paid an additional $2,000 if his image was used on products sold in Canada. While shopping in 2002, Christoff noticed his image on Taster’s Choice coffee jars.

Claiming that he was never paid the $2,000 prescribed in his original modeling contract, Christoff filed a lawsuit in February 2003 against Nestle USA, the makers of Taster’s Choice, under California Civil Code § 3344, California’s right of publicity statute, which bars, among other things, the unauthorized use of a person’s image for commercial purposes.

This is an important development for any company dealing with rights and clearances, and it serves as an important warning as to the substantial damages a defendant faces if the appropriate permission is not obtained.

Section 3344 of California Civil Code is violated when a person or company knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness for purposes of advertising or selling without such person’s prior consent.

Misappropriation of likeness is a serious claim that can have substantial penalties if a plaintiff prevails on a Section 3344 claim. A plaintiff may be able to recover significant damages.

Punitive damages as well as attorneys fees are allowed under a California Civil Code § 3344 claim. However, the California statute also has an additional set of teeth. A plaintiff may also seek to recover the defendant’s profits from the misappropriation, much like claims in copyright and trademark violations.

Nestle offered $100,000 to settle, but Christoff demanded $8.5 million. Finally, a jury determined that Nestle should have paid Christoff $330,000 for the use of his likeness and that Christoff should receive damages equal to 5 percent of Nestle’s profits from Taster’s Choice sales from 1997 to 2003, or $15.3 million — quite a princely sum for having your photograph appear on a jar of coffee. Nestle should have taken his offer and settled the case.

The moral to this story is never use a performer’s photograph or video without a release signed by that performer, and make sure to pay them the correct compensation they are entitled to. Finally, do not exceed the rights granted to you by the performer in that model release. Failure to do so might mean, at least in California, loss of any and all profits you might have earned from the use of that photo or video. In other states, misappropriations of likeness and right to publicity are viable claims but may not have the same far-reaching ramifications as they do in California.

In conclusion, whether you are a producer of DVD or web-based content, it is vital that your model releases are legally sufficient to withstand the scrutiny of review by a civil judge or jury. Therefore, if you are using a model release that has not been drafted or reviewed by your attorney, you are risking potential litigation and loss of profits.

If you are a performer, there is a different set of issues to be concerned with. First, do not sign a release without reading each word carefully. I realize that more often than not, these releases are given to a performer at the time of the shoot, and they are simply asked to sign them without much chance to have anyone, especially an attorney, review it. Do not assume that the producer has your best interests at heart. Do not sign a release unless it notes the production date of the scene. This ensures that there are at least two distinct places on the release where a date is noted. This is important in the event someone tries to reuse a release later on down the road. Having the date in two places just makes it a little bit harder to forge.

One last thought: If a performer presents themselves at the set or scene and they are clearly intoxicated or under the influence of some type of substance, do not shoot them. It is quite possible that the model release will not be valid since the performer may not be able to legally consent to or fully understand the contract he or she has signed.

July 30, 2012 0