Simple, porn is considered art under first amendment principles ergo protected by the first Amendment. Its legalized prostitution. Porn = free speech. Private acts do not
If a woman accepts money for sex that is prostitution. If a man offers money for sex, that is solicitation. Both illegal acts, right? If a woman and a man (porn actors) are paid money by a production company (third party) to have sex, why is that not illegal?
Some states have laws that specifically allow for this when part of a performance. In the case of CA they box the definition of performance in fairly well so that you can't just videotape an encounter with a provider and call it a performance to skirt the laws.
It's prostitution if the payment is made in order to sexually gratify someone. (not necessarily the one who pays, since that would create a loophole allowing people to legall hire escorts for their friends)
Porn actresses and actors get paid in exchange for working as performers in a movie. The fact that they end up having sex in the process is beside the point, because the money is being spent as a business investment and not for a sexual encounter.
This is why filming your encounter with an escort wouldn't change the legal nature of what you are doing.
the *client* cannot legally be a producer of the movie? Suppose he wants to make a movie and offers to pay a production company for their film equipment and the *contractor's* (provider's) time, assuming that she is affiliated directly, and exclusively, with the production company.
Does that fall outside the bounds of legality?
This is a very interesting issue to me because it's come up a few times and I haven't known what to say--film doesn't lie (most of the time) and I don't want anything incriminating me in the future!
Thanks.
The producer of the film can also appear in the fim, but it comes down to a question of his intent. If he is doing this as an elaborate and expensive scheme to get laid, then he is out of luck. If he is actually planning to distribute the film, he's OK. Guys who say they are making a movie but who don't show up with a bunch of professional lighting, wardrobe and makeup people complete with trailers and equipment are not going to fool anyone in law enforcement, especially if they only pay you for an hour or two of your time.
I don't know if this matters but I heard once that while prostitutes are paid before the act, porn actors are paid afterward. I've always wondered if you had sex with a woman and paid her at a later time, say a week or two afterward, can this be called prostitution?? I say no since $ did not change hands at the time of the act.
Same thing. It doesn't matter when the $ changes hands, only that there was a mutual understanding that the sex was for money.
Simple, porn is considered art under first amendment principles ergo protected by the first Amendment. Its legalized prostitution. Porn = free speech. Private acts do not
Someone please tell me. If you rent a photography studio with all of the lights and great equipment and take 400 pics of sex acts with yourself in the picture, Is that LEGAL or not?????? Also you have the intention of distributing the pics on the web or selling them to a website.
Porno is a big multibillion dollar industry. In America, (especially California) big corporations have special rights that do not apply to the rest of us. For the industry, the first amendment means they can do whatever they want as long as they have a camera and a studio. For the rest of us the first amendment only gives us the right to pay the company money.
I don't believe in censorship, but I think it's appalling that there is one set of laws for the industry, and another set for everybody else.