Worried about LE... make a movie

Bring a modelling contract with you. When the actress arrives for her performance, you hand her a script describing the scene which she will perform in and then have her endorse a contract stipulating her participation in a pornographic video.

The video camera is placed in a position which shows very little of the actors (e.g., it points to the wall opposite the bed). The scene begins. The actors stand in front of the camera and utter a few meaningless lines to establish their identities. The camera remains pointed away from the bed but continues taping. The audio is silenced.

The video is kept by the client with the permission of the actress to serve as evidence that the actual intent was to make a video.

Has anyone ever tried this before? I know it is convoluted, but it seems to be a very clever way to beat the system and, once and for all, end the prohibition of pleasure.

View the endings at Kink.com.

Let's take this to the next logical level. First, instead of advertising as escorts, providers should place ads stating they are looking for work as adult film actresses. Second, clients should post help wanted ads seeking female performers for adult videos. I'm sure some genius could create website to match aspiring actresses with aspiring Stephen Speilbergs

I was even thinking that to complete the loop, a heavily edited cut could be sold to other hobbiests for $1 to show that the motive was to make a commercially viable video. The edited version would have voices disguised and actors faces blacked out. Money made from selling the films would go to a legal defense fund for this new semi-legal industry.

It's just so subversive it might work.

Let's take this to the next logical level. First, instead of advertising as escorts, providers should place ads stating they are looking for work as adult film actresses. Second, clients should post help wanted ads seeking female performers for adult videos. I'm sure some genius could create website to match aspiring actresses with aspiring Stephen Speilbergs Originally Posted by Cpalmson

I think that's pure brilliance.

I've been on jury panels twice (never got picked) where I was asked to prosecute women who were accused of consensual acts with a member of LE.

Once I asked the prosecutor to show me who the victim is in this supposed crime. She said that the person in the alleged crime had broken the law. I said "Aren't criminal courts supposed to judge people who have victimized someone else? Who or what is the victim of this 'crime'?"

I was struck from the jury panel immediately.

View the endings at Kink.com. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Yeah, at the end of a Kink video, they have a little rap at the end where the actress talks about how she was feeling at different points in the scene.

How would you imagine that would go down in my scenario? Would it all be scripted? Or kind of like a video mini-review which is posted on ECCIE and the members pay for it to establish the premise that this was an amateur video and not something else?

Man, the more I think about this, the better it sounds. It's like you're killing two birds with one stone. You're creating a industry of amateur adult videos but the actual action is not shown and the actors faces may even be obscured but the action is referenced in a rap at the end. The marketplace is basically a site like this one where people pay to see the rap at the end. It's important for legal purposes to show the commercial purpose of the video is to sell movies. In this case, reviews.

??? Pure brilliance or pure BS? Thoughts?

??? Pure brilliance or pure BS? Thoughts? Originally Posted by bbbqj

Most pure brilliance is at least part pure BS.

Or is it most pure BS is at least part brilliance?

You decide.

But I like the concept.

Hell, you can even submit this as evidence:



Claim the film is for a niche in internet porn like the one pictured above. If you are not familiar with the genre, it portrays anonymous sex for money in a documentary format and at then end of the action, the director (usually the actor who is also holding the camera as these are usually done POV style) throws a wad of cash at the young lady and she uses it to wipe up the facial he just gave her.

Kind of bizarre, but how would LEO be the wiser if they confiscated this or walked in on you?

If Civil Barrister or some other person from the legal field could weigh in with speculation, that might be interesting.

I was watching one of these the other day, and it occurred to me, that these schmucks might just be the ultimate player. They have discovered a way to fuck beautiful women on camera, basically for free and without worry of LEO. If you notice, these niche films usually have nerds as the male leads, not studly, hung dudes form porn central casting.

I have said it before--nerds really rule the world. I wonder if those genius film makers that came up with this idea aren't a decade ahead of this thread? They don't need a site like this. . .they just get other dudes to pay for them to fuck celebrities through the sales of the videos they shoot and then distribute.

Let's take it a bit further... Modeling contract is signed, video made, there is a dispute over the quality af the video and the actress takes it with her leaving the video producer holding the contract and a few dollars lighter!!

That way, the "model" is sure that the inferior video will never be shown.

Then, in a court case where the "model" is being prosecuted for prostitution, she can say,

"...but Judge... I have the crappy video right here!! Watch it yourself... the guy was horrible while I was the star!! Certainly you can understand that judge. This was not prostitution, it was a porno film gone horribly wrong!"

Yeah... I like that scenario!!

Smooch!

Lea

Let's take it a bit further... Modeling contract is signed, video made, there is a dispute over the quality af the video and the actress takes it with her leaving the video producer holding the contract and a few dollars lighter!!

That way, the "model" is sure that the inferior video will never be shown.

Then, in a court case where the "model" is being prosecuted for prostitution, she can say,

"...but Judge... I have the crappy video right here!! Watch it yourself... the guy was horrible while I was the star!! Certainly you can understand that judge. This was not prostitution, it was a porno film gone horribly wrong!"

Yeah... I like that scenario!!

Smooch!

Lea Originally Posted by Lea Madisson

Yeah, but then I can't sell the video to pay for my indulgences. . .urr recover my production costs.

Let's take it a bit further... Modeling contract is signed, video made, there is a dispute over the quality af the video and the actress takes it with her leaving the video producer holding the contract and a few dollars lighter!!

That way, the "model" is sure that the inferior video will never be shown.

Then, in a court case where the "model" is being prosecuted for prostitution, she can say,

"...but Judge... I have the crappy video right here!! Watch it yourself... the guy was horrible while I was the star!! Certainly you can understand that judge. This was not prostitution, it was a porno film gone horribly wrong!"

Yeah... I like that scenario!!

Smooch!

Lea Originally Posted by Lea Madisson

The legal issue that I guess would have to be decided in court is whether a porn video can be a porn video if the faces are obscured and the action is not actually seen. For example, what if the camera films the movement of shadows on the wall or bodies behind a screen.

What about splicing in a few seconds of commercial porn like a body double and then a quick cut to the mini-review at the end?

My vision is to make a video which roughly depicts what happened during the session but shows no faces or actual sex acts. The reason is that this keeps the prices of the service reasonable because the actors remain semi-anonymous and also means that the purpose of the video is only to make money principally off the review itself which follows the heavily edited action.

I suppose letting the actress keep the footage may make the actress feel better, but it would make a legal case easier for LE because directors do not make footage to give to their actors. They make footage to sell in the commercial video business. My twist is the footage is not X rated and the identities of the participants are kept anonymous. The movie purpose is the review. That is what is being technically sold. A review of the action which took place with the camera pointed in a direction which shows little of what happened. To assuage the fears of both parties, I would make sure that the video could be viewed as it was being taped and you'd almost have to do it on a soundstage to give LE even less of an ability to cry foul. A movie studio which effectively functions as a legal brothel but has a team of lawyers to make sure they stay in legal bounds.

I am almost tempted to try pitching this idea on Craigslist to non-pros to see if any ladies want to be trailblazers in a new industry.

Just as additional note, I remember watching a porn producer explaining how his business isn't prostitution. He said that the modeling contracts do not discuss what acts will be recorded on film. This is all discussed in pre-production meetings, but never indicated on legal documentation which indicates contract rates. I really wonder if that is still true.

Hell, you can even submit this as evidence:



Claim the film is for a niche in internet porn like the one pictured above. If you are not familiar with the genre, it portrays anonymous sex for money in a documentary format and at then end of the action, the director (usually the actor who is also holding the camera as these are usually done POV style) throws a wad of cash at the young lady and she uses it to wipe up the facial he just gave her.

Kind of bizarre, but how would LEO be the wiser if they confiscated this or walked in on you?

If Civil Barrister or some other person from the legal field could weigh in with speculation, that might be interesting.

I was watching one of these the other day, and it occurred to me, that these schmucks might just be the ultimate player. They have discovered a way to fuck beautiful women on camera, basically for free and without worry of LEO. If you notice, these niche films usually have nerds as the male leads, not studly, hung dudes form porn central casting.

I have said it before--nerds really rule the world. I wonder if those genius film makers that came up with this idea aren't a decade ahead of this thread? They don't need a site like this. . .they just get other dudes to pay for them to fuck celebrities through the sales of the videos they shoot and then distribute.

Originally Posted by ANONONE

I think that may be a good way to start up this idea because it stays in bounds with what has already been accepted in court, but I can tell you why this model isn't being repeated by every schmuck with a video camera. The price! If you want to do someone on video in full view of the camera, they want big bucks. You are talking a huge cash layout upfront. And to recoup your cash, you've got to essentially market this thing and hope someone will buy it. I don't want to go that route. Many hobbyists and providers just want a way to play without having LE breathing down their neck. So they want to create a legal industry which allows them to do their thing and the profit is now going toward something called "the review" and not the act that was (not) captured on the video. Reviews aren't illegal as of yet. So that's what you're marketing. Also you don't have to be handsome or find exhibitionistic actresses if you're selling the review and not the actors hot bodies.

I have the model release contracts! lol I sell access to my porn videos myself.... Once the money is exchanged, I give the costumer my PIN to access my porn.

I think that may be a good way to start up this idea because it stays in bounds with what has already been accepted in court, but I can tell you why this model isn't being repeated by every schmuck with a video camera. The price! If you want to do someone on video in full view of the camera, they want big bucks. You are talking a huge cash layout upfront. And to recoup your cash, you've got to essentially market this thing and hope someone will buy it. I don't want to go that route. Many hobbyists and providers just want a way to play without having LE breathing down their neck. So they want to create a legal industry which allows them to do their thing and the profit is now going toward something called "the review" and not the act that was (not) captured on the video. Reviews aren't illegal as of yet. So that's what you're marketing. Also you don't have to be handsome or find exhibitionistic actresses if you're selling the review and not the actors hot bodies. Originally Posted by bbbqj

Actually it is not as expensive as you think for the lower echelon of porn actresses. Most of them will do an internet clip video shoot for around $700. Keep in mind that often these shoots take four to five hours.

Do the math. . .per hour. . .it might be just cheaper than your ordinary approach to hobbying.

About two years ago, I almost booked Ginger Lee for something like that. She was touring strip clubs and I managed to get a few lap dances. I inquired about a private meet--hinting at PSE. She declined, but informed me it was possible to hire her for short video shoots. The cost was $1000. That was two years ago and I balked at the price. In retrospect, once I learned that these take 3-4 hours with reshoots and multiple angles, it occurs to me that this is the same rate you would pay per hour with an escort.

You do have an initial investment that may be steep for lighting and other equipment as well as getting the contract drawn up and making yourself official. You may have to also invest in networking to be accepted as a "legit" director. The perk would be that you could hang out in Vegas for the AVN convention every year!