Content Rights

I’ve personally noticed a worrying and startling trend pick up recently regarding the rights to content that performers actually have versus the rights they think they have which is usually and frustratingly in direct conflict with the rights of the Producer.

My view on content rights as a Producer; the rights to the content that the performer holds is set out in the model release document, I understand that some producers will allow limited rights through their release document (in the cases of content share for example) but I typically do not. My model release is explicit in outlining that all rights to any content, in exchange for compensation of (whatever it maybe) are waived and they have no claim at all. I pay them their fee and off they go. I expect to use the content in whatever format and distribute it by whatever method I see fit – as my model release clearly outlines.

My view on content rights as a Performer; I would expect, unless otherwise discussed and outlined in a model release signed by both me and the producer that all content shot during the shoot would default to the full ownership of the producer/company shooting. I would expect to not be able to use any part of the content we shot for my own purpose, I would also expect to not be able to dictate the usage or distribution methods to said producer. I would get my fee. Off I go.

I have experience of producing and performing in content so I fully behave with the above ethos in mind simply because that is what I would expect the two definitions to be.

Lately though, I had to pull some content from two seperate models from sale as they didn’t realise that that may be an avenue I would like venture down to make some of my expenses back. These requests cost me a predicted earning of £2000 in January which would have covered production costs and a tidy profit too.

I was also requested to remove a video scene, nonnude, teaser clip from youtube as the performers relatives were finding it. I obliged, understanding her concerns but that video was driving a decent amount of regular traffic into my site and no doubt resulted in a few of the subscriptions i recieved since publishing it to Youtube. It had 10,000 views in the first three days.

I’ve also read on BGAFD that a perormer included a line in a post of hers stating that people shouldn’t shoot her and sell content to sites that have fucked her over.

In all three cases of content removal, I have obliged. Mainly because I feel pressured in to doing so, given the UK’s size and pool of decent talent available it is all too easy to quickly earn a bad name for reasons and actions the performer community may or may not understand. Selling adult content, as long as there is a release and the agreement is legally/consensually entered in to and both parties are aware of what they are signing (ie: they read the document), is hardly an unprofessional thing to do!

At the end of the day, to shoot a performer for four hours I layout considerable expense and I need to recover these costs and if I have a selection of content that is mine, shouldn’t I be able to sell it?

If models made me aware that they were keen to limit my options in terms of publication, distribution and earning fucking money… I’d clearly be paying a reduced fee for their content.

I’ve become a little annoyed and irritated at this latest trend, so many performers tend to be eager to try and control their content despite signing it away. Yet they expect to keep the fees they are used to.

My model release clearly outlines that usage and delivery metods of the content can be by any medium and at my sole discretion. It feels to me that certain models don’t respect this documentation enough to be performing in Adult Entertainment. I can see no way past this issue and if i’m honest it’s the one area of this business that have found vile and abhorrent since entering into professional production.

Clearly I could have been tougher in dealing with these requests, they were my first, but I recieved my next request a couple of weeks after postng my concerns to a thread on here. I feel that my frustration about the first too better informed my decision this time round and made me actually stand up to this request.

This next request was to remove full blown sets (an entire shoot) from my site in their entirety as the model has had an ‘opportunity’ come her way but an ‘opportunity’ from a company who doesn’t hire adult models but have suggested they may still work with her if she can have the content removed from the internet. 

So, I remain calm and explain that even if I remove her content from my site, the content will still be on the internet – the affiliate promo content for example. I also suggested that some of the other sites she has worked for will simply decline her requests but nonetheless I offered to alternatives; 1) A commitment from me that I will void posting free previews of her content and only share content of her in the members area and 2) If she can return the fee I paid plus my travel to her then I will be in a position to pull her content. 

I also reiterated that I simply cannot afford to pay for content to have it sat there. I’m not in it to see naked ladies, I’m in it to make money! 

It just seems to me, as it did when I first started this thread, that here in the UK the whole employer-employee dynamic doesn’t seemed to be as observed as it should be. Hell, it’s hard enough to find decent (by that I mean attractive and reliable) 20-25 year old models in the UK without having this post-shoot, flaky attitude to consider too. 

For the thread relating to this entry, see here.