Not in Libertopia it’s not, because contracts are the be-all end-all in Libertopia. Here in the US, however, there are other considerations, so yes, it is a debate.
Eh? In the US, there is long-established precedent in entertainment contract law. The actor’s agent is obligated to inform his or her client of stipulations such as filming nude. If Ms. Greene was not made aware of this stipulation, then she has no obligation to film the nude scene. That, however, is not a debate at all, but a simple reading of legal precedent.
What they do in your inane Libertopia is of no interest to me.
Some contracts are non-enforceable. Bricker played devil’s advocate saying maybe nudity clauses should be treated as such. LHoD suggested a compromise: liability of breaking a nudity clause should be limited to a paycheck, followed by presumed blacklisting in the industry. I noted that simulated sex was something more than nudity, but less than hardcore porn.
IIRC, there is but a single poster who has expressed sympathy for plaintiff.
Is that correct? I thought a person was held responsible for a contract they signed even if they foolishly chose to not read it.
Greene might be able to sue her agent for failing to point out she was signing an agreement to do a nude scene (because it was her agent’s responsibility to advise her of things like this) but I think she is still legally responsible for the terms of the contract.
…this is irrelevant. I have sympathy for the plaintiff: I wasn’t aware posting that I had sympathy was a requirement for Great Debates. Now that I’ve expressed sympathy: what does that datapoint mean?
Could someone explain why nudity would not be an enforceable contract term for an actor? I don’t get it. I’m not sure if anyone is saying it, but if so, why would simulated sex be another contract issue? Simulated sex is not sex.
Director: “Take your shirt off and let us see your breasts.”
Actress: “No.”
…what exactly do you expect the director to do next: hold her down and pull the shirt off?
Uh, fire her, like you would if you broke any other part of an employment contract? Charge her for damages if they have to go film her parts with someone else?
Since when is physical force the way that contract terms are enforced?
If she signed a contract that stated she would appear topless then she is breaching the contract. Nobody has said the women must be forced to take off her shirt, they are saying she be responsible for the damages caused by her refusal to fulfill the terms of her contract. This is no different from an acting contract stating an actor will appear in a certain costume.
ETA: I see BigT said pretty much the same thing.
…I know you knew this. So why the question? What exactly is it you don’t get?
This is a contract dispute between two parties where both parties have conflicting stories and evidence. If the production company wins: then the actress will be responsible for damages. If the actress wins, payday for her.
So I’m not exactly sure what it is you aren’t getting. You concede she can’t be forced to reveal her breasts. If she was found to be in breach of contract she might loose: however if the circumstances she describes are found by the court to be accurate she may win.
So what aren’t you getting?
As for the simulated sex question: simulated sex without the consent of one of the parties is not simulated sex.
I asked why some people think that nudity is not an enforceable term of a contract. What is it you aren’t getting?
Simulated sex does not change definition based on consent. Simulated sex is not sex and lack of consent doesn’t magically turn it into sex or anything else.
…that wasn’t the question you asked. If that was the question you were asking, then the question is most probably a strawman. Who is arguing this?
This is the question you actually asked:
I answered that question.
If you were to kiss me, paw me, grope me, rub your hands up and down my body without my consent I’m pretty sure that fits the definition of sexual assault in many parts of the world. No it isn’t “sex.” But it could put someone in jail.
…of course they could fire her.
This is what they are trying to do right now.
Since never?
It is exactly what I asked. Here are two cases:
How is that any different?
No you have not, not in any way.
That has nothing to do with my question. Why would simulated sex not be an enforceable term of a contract?
Good questions. The only thing I can think of is that she has turned it in her mind from screwing up her career by reneging on her agreement to do the part to being the innocent victim of sexual harassment, by that mean old production company who rewrote the script to see her boobs. Maybe she thinks that if she wins someone will hire her again. If I were her agent I’d dump her ass - agenting depends on trust, and who would trust an agent who sent someone who has cost a production company a lot of money?
The Project Greenlight reality series dealt with this too. John Gulager, a rookie director was allowed to film a low budget horror film. He made the mistake of filming most of the actress’ scenes before the brief topless scene. She basically told him to shove the contract. She knew they had committed too much money filming her scenes to replace her. The film was released under the title Feast and would have sold much better with the intended sex scene. They are important for low budget film sales.
Lesson learned? A smart director gets the topless scene out of the way day 1. If the actress or actor balks, then hire someone else.
…one is a devil’s advocates position: it is clearly labeled as one. From the position of devil’s advocate he spells out the case for not making the contact enforceable in his words does he not?
The other seems to describe an enforceable contract. He is advocating a change to the status quo, and doesn’t know the current state of affairs, so obviously isn’t claiming “that nudity is not an enforceable term of a contract.”
So I’m not seeing what you are seeing.
Your revised question asks people to explain their opinions. Your actual question indicated that you didn’t know the answer.
Oh but I did, in every way!
To find out you actually said you only have to scroll up a few posts. You didn’t ask why would simulated sex not be an enforceable term of a contract. You actually asked:
Simulated sex is a contract issue because without the consent of any of the parties what would take place would not be simulated sex: it would be sexual assault, or whatever the appropriate legal term would be in the place that you live.
I was summarizing the thread for Stringbean. I did not intend to imply that sympathy was a requirement for posting in GD and am having difficulty reading that in my post. I was observing that many posters were discussing the issue in a general sense without necessarily indicating sympathy with the particulars of the plaintiff’s complaints. I acknowledge my expression was imperfect. Your sympathy for the plaintiff is noted, but I have little reaction to that. I wave no pitchforks.
Voyager: I’ve been wondering whether the actress could get 2nd wind in her career on the fundi circuit. It’s a long shot, admittedly.
To be clear, I’m suggesting that certain penalties for failing to perform sexual entertainment ought not be enforceable, even if they’d be enforceable under other circumstances. Contracts would need to be written with smaller penalties for such failure, and that’d be taken into account.
I have no idea what you are talking. I have asked why certain specific terms of a contract would not be enforceable and you have done nothing to answer that. You seem to think they are enforceable so I don’t know why you have interjected at all. And if you are under the impression that I asking the general legal question of what makes any term of contract unenforcable then you are mistaken. I am asking why anybody thinks that nudity or simulated sex are not enforceable terms of a contract in and of themselves.