There’s been an uptick in casual conversations about filming and in inquiries. Some clients want to capture the moment “just for themselves.” Others talk about being a "stunt dick" for clips to OnlyFans or sites based abroad, thinking that geography or discretion makes it okay. So let’s clear this up:

 
No matter the country, platform, or level of privacy you think you’re maintaining, if there’s no signed model release, it’s not legal to share, post, or profit from the content. Here’s why:

 
1. 18 U.S. Code § 2257 Compliance (aka “2257 regulations”)
If you film any explicit content with the intent to share, you’re required by U.S. federal law to maintain proper age verification records and model releases. It doesn’t matter if you’re a solo creator or filming abroad, if it touches a U.S.-based audience or platform (which 99% of content will), you’re on the hook.
More here from the DOJ (https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/18-usc-2257-recordkeeping-requirements-compliance)

 
2. Platform Terms of Service (TOS):
Major platforms like OnlyFans, ManyVids, Pornhub, and Fansly require you to submit a signed model release from every person appearing in the content even if they’re “not shown” (re: face is blurred or you can only hear their voice) or it’s “just for subscribers.” If you upload content without this, they can remove your account and, depending on the circumstances, report you.
• OnlyFans TOS (https://onlyfans.com/terms) (see Section 5 and 6)
• ManyVids Performer Agreement (https://www.manyvids.com/Content/terms/)
• Pornhub Model Program Requirements (https://help.pornhub.com/hc/en-us/articles/360036011274-Model-Verification-Process)

 
When a Creator films without a release, whether they are the client or the SWer:
• The Creator risks violating revenge porn laws (many states now have serious penalties).
• The Creator can be reported to platforms, banned, or even sued.
• The Creator may unintentionally expose someone, including themselves to harm, stalking, blackmail, or career-damaging leaks.
• The Creator, should they be a SWer and not a client, is putting their brand and income in jeopardy.

 
A few common myths:
•  “We’re overseas, so we don’t need a release.” Unequivocally false. Many international platforms still follow 2257 AND/or require compliance with local consent laws.
•  “I’m not showing faces.” That doesn’t make it legal.
•  “It’s just for me.” That doesn’t eliminate the need for consent or documentation to protect BOTH parties.  

 
At the end of the day, filming without proper documentation isn't just a bad look, it's a legal liability. If you're genuinely interested in creating content, approach it like a professional would: with transparency, respect, and the desire to do what's best to keep both parties safe.

Just so I understand better where you are coming from. You are talking about legal framework for filming within the broader context of P4P- which in and of itself is illegal in most of the United States of America.  

 
So what legal recourse does a plaintiff (in this case a provider) has if they want to sue a defendant (in this case a monger), who  taped her without consent.  Isn't this akin to a thief hurting himself during a burglary, and then blaming the home owner for not mopping the water off the floor.

 
P.S. Certain providers should make a note as to what an interesting topic looks like. And barring a few exceptions, largely simp men who can barely wipe drool off their face whenever they see someone of other gender, and will bend backwards to score brownie points, most of the seasoned mongers would prefer a quality post like this over some mindless nonsense that gets posted here.

-- Modified on 5/15/2025 9:59:39 AM

Sure, if she blurts out “he was paying me for sex” she may be SOL. I would imagine if she wanted to take legal action, she would avoid this detail. I’m sure it can be extracted in court somehow. But that only works if the client decides to divulge that part. Not sure it helps the client much either to admit that detail. In all likelihood, any decent lawyers will try to come to a settlement. The question is whether settling gets him off the hook because he was paying for sex or not. I’m no lawyer, but my interpretation is they’re both guilty of illegally paid sex. But only he is guilty of illegally filming her. If bluffs are called, he has more to lose.

Filming without consent is a felony.  Distribution without consent is another felony.  It falls under the same laws as revenge porn.

If you are interested in filming I suggest you get a video of her first consenting to the entire thing.  If she's not willing to sign a contract with her real name.

Recourse, if someone filmed you without your consent is to make sure you have good proof.  If it's on their Only Fans, etc, get screen capture software to show the porn.

Then contact the police stating you did not give consent and want to press charges.

Then contact every site the porn is on and demand it be removed immediately.  Also demand to know whatever financial arrangements and payments have been provided to the person owning the page.  If they do not provide it, the information will be subpoenaed.  

Then call a lawyer.  Let your lawyer do everything else.  They will usually work on a contingency, meaning you pay a small retainer and they get 1/3-1/2 of the final settlement depending on how far it goes.  The platform will probably settle quickly once you establish the content creator did not maintain proper image release forms or pay you for the content.

from personal experience that carries any weight is "I'm no lawyer."   A filming case is a Civil Case, and about money sought by the aggrieved party.  Violations of criminal statutes concerning filming is a criminal case.  Criminal cases are given priority over a competing Civil case, and the Civil case will likely be stayed by the civil court until the criminal case plays out.  If the defendant is found guilty in a criminal case, the civil case is likely a slam dunk, but from a practical standpoint, any money that might be gained from enforcement of a civil judgement has probably already been spent on attorneys fees in the criminal case, and he will have no income while sitting in prison.  If the defendant is found innocent criminally, an aggrieved party may still sue Civilly and win a monetary judgment, which has a lower standard of proof, but then the challenge is collecting on the judgment.  Best example of this is the OJ Simpson case; criminally innocent, but civilly liable for monetary damages which the plaintiffs are still trying to collect from OJ's estate.

Civil cases are settled with money between the parties, while Criminal cases can only be settled between the defendant and the prosecutor.  Whether or not they are both guilty of illegally paid sex is a separate triable issue.  Naturally, they are BOTH going to claim they money was for the filming, not the sex, which creates reasonable doubt.  In the absence of documentation to the contrary, the next best evidence would be oral testimony, and if the adversarial parties are both testifying to the same set of facts, there is no case for prosecution.   Accordingly, your interpretation is bananas.  I wouldn't rely too much on "bluffing" if you find yourself in this situation.

Well, I will give you credit, at least this time you stayed on topic and didn’t make it about my alias and the fact it doesn’t allow you to see my reviews.

 
And, not really that bananas if you understand what I was referencing by bluff. The bluff is, if she says she is coming after him, and he says if you do I will divulge that you allowed me to pay for sex and you’re an escort. I’m sure some providers would fall for this one. Now, it could be for various reasons and not just because they’re afraid of legal action. Maybe they don’t want their business out there? And, this threat from the guy could very well be a bluff. Not 100% guarantee, because some might actually follow through and take the if I am going down, you’re coming with me route. But I would imagine most wouldn’t since it is also outing themselves.

you will also learn that when there is a bust involving a provider and a John, prosecutors tend to go harder on the John, because it has long been the policy of various Justice departments that if you kill the market, the provider has no one to sell to.  Even though you have doubled down on your suggestion of bluffing, if the John is facing more stringent penalties, the bluff is worthless.    The only guarantee that is 100% in this situation is that any guy who tries this is a complete moron.  The provider is more likely to say, "Go ahead, take your best shot.  We can call the district attorney together right now."

 
If you would listen and learn, you would not keep making a fool of yourself commenting on topics you know nothing about, like this one.