Hey, now…
Have you paid attention to anything beyond the basic reason for their “performances”? It’s as if the producers went to some Big 10 University and hired the most inarticulate (and probationary) athletes on the losing streak football team.
Okay, this is an old thread, but I’ll answer anyway.
Why wouldn’t it be real?
I’m sure screen tests for porn exist. Before a performer gets her first paid job, there must be a test where she demonstrates willingness to have sex while being filmed. She may or may not get job offers on the strength of that.
And then, after a few paid performances, when she becomes a known name in the business, the studio can release her audition tape. Why wouldn’t they release the real one?
As for getting paid, well she didn’t get paid when she auditioned. But if they later release the audition tape, she gets paid for that.
Because without contracts being signed and specific agreements being made, very necessary lighting is wasted and a case for rape can be made.
I know that porn actors and actresses in the US have a union. I’m assuming that any studio putting out movies with performers who are not union members would find that no union members will work for them. The simple solution is for performers to join the union before their first film. So- we have member of the porn actors’ union, who signed a contract and has been paid. I would not call that “real”
This is a baffling answer.
Of course the performer has made the specific agreements.
Someone has decided that they wish to be a performer in porn. They have filled out an application, in which they state that wish to have sex on camera in exchange for money. They have provided proof of age and medical history.
And then, having done this, they go through an audition to demonstrate their ability to do the job. They have been told that sex on camera is part of their audition. They have agreed in writing to do it. It is consensual and contracted. Of course it isn’t rape.
Are you doubting that such auditions exist?
The actor makes specific agreements for specific shoots. I can’t think of any “general release” that would hold up in a court of law where a person could be told beforehand that the footage would just be for audition purposes, then have the producer/director decide unilaterally to release it to the public.
BTW, professionals I know of would definitely scream bloody murder if this were tried on them.
Why is this discussion happening in FQ when none of the participants has any real knowledge of what’s going on? Like way too many topics here, the responses have been 100% speculation, both old and new.
From this site: Navigating Adult Film Law: Key Legal Considerations - Art and Media Law
" * Model Release Forms: Performers must sign model release forms that clearly state their consent to participate in the production and outline the rights granted to the producer. These forms should be detailed and include information about the intended use and distribution of the content."
Notice that you are consenting to participate in an actual production. A casting call is not an actual production-it is an audition.
A fifteen year-old zombie, res-erected!
Who said anything about unilateral.
When the studio releases a tape claiming to be Jenna Jameson’s audition, then I am firmly convinced that:
- it really is her audition tape.
- She signed all necessary consent forms before making it
- She gave her consent to the tape being released, and was paid for it.
What part of this sounds unlikely?
Never said it has never happened. Just laying out that most of those filmed scenarios where people supposedly are just there for an “audition” but then are supposedly convinced to preform acts “just for the audition” are faked.
Not 100% speculation, having seen the contracts and talked with those in the industry who have encountered actual releases and contracts.
There was the case of GirlsDoPorn, a website that featured amateurs and was shutdown with six people involved arrested and charged with sex trafficking, fraud and coercion. Numerous women testified that they were flown in nominally to do a nude photo shoot then pressured to perform filmed sex acts instead, often being told that they weren’t “good enough” to be paid for just a photo shoot, offered no return ticket, documents held, etc. Women working for the site would pose as former models and talk up how great it was and how well it paid and how it was totally safe. The owners would lie and say the videos would be for private DVD sales only to select elite customers and not be put online.
Once in the room, women reported being forced to repeat sex acts over and over again far in excess of what was agreed to (being told it would be a 30 minute shoot and actually lasting 8+ hours), being told they wouldn’t get paid if they couldn’t perform well enough, threatened with legal action, etc. Wiki Article
So while it wasn’t a stereotypical “Golly, we need to practice sex on this couch so I can get a job?” scenario, many women were lured in under false circumstances, lied to about what was going on and forced to have sex they didn’t want to have while often being paid well under what was agreed to and with their videos distributed (after promises not to).
Every audition tape I’ve ever seen has been where the performer knew from the start that sex was part of the audition, and had consented in advance. I’ve never seen one where she was supposedly “surprised” at being asked for sex.
You are perhaps conflating a different type of scene. The “Excuse me” scenes, where a camera crew stops a random person passing by and offers her money to show her boobs, then gradually persuades her to go further. Those are obvious fakes. But they have nothing to do with auditions.
If you were an insomniac in the 90s I’m sure you remember “Girls Gone Wild”. Maybe it’s not hardcore pornography but the distinction is probably lost on its victims. Ultimately the producer got in trouble for not having all the consent forms properly filled out and saved. Plus I think there was at least one underage woman. If you’re not familar with it. Drunk women at spring break type events showing various degrees of nudity.
“Pam and Tommy” is a recent streaming movie about the sex tape and its release. It gets into some of the legal aspects. IANAL, so don’t know how accurate it is. But it does portray the porn industry as very aware the legalities of releasing the tape.
“Revenge Porn” is another issue. There has been legislative action on the subject but still is an issue. More legitimate porn web sites have attempted to scrub anything without a trail to legal porn producers, that doesn’t mean they never had it before.
They definitely had it before. It wasn’t revenge porn but a friend of mine had consensual sex with one of her friends but she didn’t consent to be taped and especially not to have it up on one of the major porn sites. It was up for a week before she found out and a lot of people in her town had seen it. She had it quickly removed. This was quite a few years ago and they are more careful now about what they will allow to be uploaded.
I feel revenge porn belongs in its own thread. If we want to argue over what should be done GD. If we just want to complain about it The Pit.
The premise is inherently nonsensical. “Before we enter into an agreement to have sex on camera, we need to first enter into an agreement to have sex on camera”. And what would the producer need an audition for, anyway? If the performer gets cold feet during the “actual shoot”, she obviously doesn’t get paid. How is that any different from if she gets cold feet during an “audition”?
Quite a lot, really. Porn may be cheap to produce, but it still requires an investment of time and money.
Even a standard ‘housewife has sex with pizza delivery guy’ requires renting a room for filming, acquiring costumes, setting up the lighting, hiring the male star, and so on. If the female performer gets cold feet, they lose their investment.
And they could lose quite a lot, if the part is “third girl at brothel” in a scene requiring a dozen performers.
And willingness to do the job isn’t the only thing. There’s also testing to see if the camera loves her, or not. Some people may be attractive in real life, but just not photogenic.