Ok here's a new question for the legal eagles.

We all know prostitution, a sex act in exchange for money, is illegal. Although having a boyfriend or husband who pays you an allowance and expects sex in return isn't.

But what about adult video?  It's not illegal to be paid to have sex while making photos or video.

But would it be considered legal to advertise or offer to act in limited release sex videos or photos?

Limited to say one copy... which the owner could even destroy afterward if he wanted to.

For example - if an individual were to hire me to act in a video and pay me say $200 for an hour's shoot with the understanding that he would also be "acting" in the movie - which we would shoot ourselves (say a camera on a tripod).

Would that then be legal?

If it's not an offer of a sex act for money, but an offer to act in a sex video - even though the physical acts are the same.

What could they arrest you for?

And would it be convictable?

There are many girls in Hollywood who make adult videos daily, with different partners each film.  Many of those films are never released.  Many are probably ultimately destroyed.

I've done video and still in the past for free-lance videographers who then sold the material to online sites (with my permission).  But when the film was shot there was no guarantee that it would ever be sold or released.  I didn't care, I had my money.

The only difference I can see is the guys I've shot for are established professional photographers.  But everyone has to start somewhere, so would it make any difference in court or more importantly before arrest, if the people who hired me to act with them were making their first film?

What about if I also supplied the camera and location - say for a camera rental fee, but no charge for the space as we are in a residential zone.

Suggestions / opinions appreciated.

Best,
TS Jamie

-- Modified on 3/9/2007 3:21:07 PM

There are all sorts of permits that have to be issued for any film shoot including porn. Without those permits the shoot is illegal. I'm no expert but I would hazard a guess that you would be taking a big chance. Ultimately your lawyer would do pretty well though...

You may want to ask this question in the porn star section.

My guess is  it is  a 1st amendment issue.  The artist representation of whatever depicted in adult films is protected as part of the 1st amendment rights of free speech?  [Just like flag burning, as a form of political protest, is protected as part of the 1st amendmet risht of free speech].  So assuming all your film permits are in orer...

My guess is that the law makes a substantive judement that an adult video intended for just one person is simply a dodge behind which an illegal act of prostitution attempts to take cover.  Neer mind that's it a victimless crime [or as close to one as you can get], the act agreed to and contracted by consenting adults.  Oh, well.

This is not a "new question".  It shows up on this board several times each year.  

California law defines prostitution more or less as an exchange of money or other valuable consideration for a "lewd act" the purpose of which is to sexually gratify one of the participants.

Actors in an adult film get off, but that's not the reason they're being paid.  Instead, they are being paid so that the producers can make a film which will be sold commercially.

Paying an escort and filming it doesn't get around the ban on prostitution because the payment is still for your own gratification.  The film you make won't protect you, but it will be awfully good evidence for the D.A. to show the jury.

Having a permit allows you to make a film, not to commit a crime.  My response to the original question explains why the actors aren't committing prostitution while they make the film.

If this were the explanation, actors could also use real drugs instead of props.  Making a movie does not turn otherwise criminal behavior into protected speech.

I remember long ago in San Diego, a local philanthropist was arrested and charged with Pandering for allowing his estate to be used for porn production.  He was somehow active in the production (but not a participant).  I do remember his being acquitted though.

Hi Sidone, thanks for your advice earlier I really appreciate it and I'm sure others do too.

Some other questions come to mind that you might have answers for.

1) I guess this is probably municipality controlled, but I thought you only needed permits to film outdoors like on public property?

If so I wonder if Paris Hilton had a permit, or anyone else who films in private.

2) What would be the legality of a "joint venture," if for example I did a video with a man who didn't pay me for my time, but who participated in a joint venture where he invested say $200 in the production costs and we had a written agreement to share any resulting royalties.

Would this solve the "gratification" angle? In other words if we made a video with every intention of selling it for a profit. AND have the capability of actually doing so.  In other words I have an online clip store and credit processing,  and a track record.

What I'm trying to reconcille is porn stars certainly get gratified (giggle) but they don't get arrested for prostitution.

Would the determining factor be a signed agreement of intention / contract prior to any activities?

Opinions?

Thanks



-- Modified on 3/12/2007 7:18:44 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/12/colb.pornography/index.html

1)  I don't know how film permits are issued, so I can't say when they're required and when they aren't.  You're probably right that this is done at the municipal level.

People who make their own videos for their own use (including Paris Hilton) are not engaged in commercial ventures and presumably don't need a permit.  There might be some situations in which a private video session would need a permit, especially if making it would somehow interfere with the public's ability to use public land.  

Los Angeles has an office that arranges and coordinates outdoor filming in the city.  You might want to call them to see if they have written guidelines you can review.

2)  I don't know the answers to these questions.  There may be a test the law uses to distinguish between "legitimate" porn shoots and people who are just trying to evade the law on prostitution, but if there is I haven't heard about it.

Hi, thanks for finding that article I would have never thought to look on CNN, duh.

I guess there is just no chance to have fun or make an honest living in the US anymore without risking jail.  sigh

Well, we have a friend in New Zealand who has offered to sponsor us, so maybe we'll just move there and raise sheep...

Giggle,
TS Jamie

The article on CNN is very clear. But let me clarify, NO PERMIT IS NECESSARY TO FILM A MOVIE WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY. There are no such things as porn permit. Only record keeping must be fulfilled under federal law, record of ID, date, place of birth of actors, identity, all a identities ever used legally or artistically. Porn companies have attornies that keep this records.
Porn would not exclude prosecution for prostitution. Courts don't see the same, because a movie it's a movie it could be fiction. No actor is hired to actually have SEX, only to ACT TO APPEAR to have sex and NUDE! Thus, not a sex contract!