Are Porn Performers Independent Contractors?

Author	Post
TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - Apr 20 2004 : 9:48PM Independent Contractors: From the California Department of Industrial Relations. If you think having OSHA involved will make things tough, just wait til the IRS decides to take a look at "The Industry". Ain't payroll taxes a bitch? -T.C. Edited by - TonyC on Apr 20 2004 [Link]
Goofyfoot Member 186 Posts 1/04	Posted - Apr 20 2004 : 10:26PM Let's just say I'm some porn star. I do a scene for Red Light, do a scene for Zero T., do 5 scenes for Digital Sin. I never do another scene with Red Light. Am I their employee? No. Independent contractor? I think so. Are Hollywood actors considered employees of the major studios they do films for? I don't believe so. Now contract girls for Vivid, Wicked, etc. I would say they are employees. [Link]
baronorca Member Montana 528 Posts 1/01	Posted - Apr 20 2004 : 10:31PM I don't see how they could be anything else, they work for whichever studio/producer they want (or can), usually by the scene, and get paid for the job performed (not time spent). [Link]
Mike Quasar Zero Tolerance Reluctant pornographer 1765 Posts 7/01	Posted - Apr 20 2004 : 10:45PM Tony, I pay all of my payroll taxes, workers comp etc because the definition of "independent contractor" is so entirely nebulous. I'm covered either way but the talent HATES it when you tell them that their check will have taxes deducted from it. I tell them "Welcome to America" - The Boston Tea Party was a loooong time ago. Quaze [Link]
TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - Apr 20 2004 : 11:10PM Mike Quasar wrote: Tony, I pay all of my payroll taxes, workers comp etc because the definition of "independent contractor" is so entirely nebulous. I'm covered either way but the talent HATES it when you tell them that their check will have taxes deducted from it. Click to expand After nearly 20 years of paying both halves of my social security and medicare withholding, I have trouble understanding how anyone would be upset that their employer was going to pay one half of it, and prevent them from spending the other half (and the income tax too!) and ending up short at tax time. I suppose most of those young folks have never filled out a schedule SE before. They must think they were going to get to keep all that money you took out and sent to Uncle Sam. -T.C. [Link]

imak Adult Film Legend 3345 Posts 2/04	Posted - Apr 20 2004 : 11:18PM We are independent contractors. we are responsible for our own taxes at the end of the year. I deducted my enemas and my nails! [Link]
TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - Apr 20 2004 : 11:36PM Kami wrote: We are independent contractors. we are responsible for our own taxes at the end of the year. I deducted my enemas and my nails! Click to expand The loss of employer contribution to payroll taxes may be offset by the increased ease with which business expenses may be deducted on a Schedule C. The more important loss in strenuously clinging to independent contractor status is the legal protections and benefits afforded employees. There are relatively easy (and completely legal!) gambits that will allow a person to deducted all of their business expenses (like enema and nails) will preserving the financial and legal benefits of employee status. I'm sure the The Industry is praying that most talent doesn't find out about these gambits. In any event, the declaration by talent "We are contractors" or by producers "They are contractors" has little or nothing to do with wha the tax man says. Actors on "ligit" production, even extras, are considered employees. There's no reason to expect the tax man would treat an porn actor differently (if he ever took the time to look.) I only bring this up because in the wake of this HIV hiatus I'm reading a lot of posts from fans that seem to indicate they think that "porn studio" and the industry at large are some sort of re-incarnation of the golden age of Hollywood. Doesn't the way that most porn video look tell you that porn is a seat of the pant operation? -T.C. [Link]
Bill All-Star Member 5334 Posts 6/00	Posted - Apr 21 2004 : 7:27PM TonyC wrote: Actors on "ligit" production, even extras, are considered employees. There's no reason to expect the tax man would treat an porn actor differently (if he ever took the time to look.) Click to expand I wouldn't be surprised that difference in the length of the shooting schedule between a "legit" production and an adult production as well as the existence of SAG both have something to do with this distinction. When a performer can have 20 different employers in 20 consecutive days, it would be difficult to classify that performer as an "employee" of any of them. [Link]
TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - Apr 21 2004 : 7:42PM Bill wrote: TonyC wrote: Actors on "ligit" production, even extras, are considered employees. There's no reason to expect the tax man would treat an porn actor differently (if he ever took the time to look.) Click to expand I wouldn't be surprised that difference in the length of the shooting schedule between a "legit" production and an adult production as well as the existence of SAG both have something to do with this distinction. When a performer can have 20 different employers in 20 consecutive days, it would be difficult to classify that performer as an "employee" of any of them. Click to expand Duration of employment, or number of employers is but one factor in determining employee vs. contractor status; and not a very heavily weighted one at that. Extras are not covered by SAG agreements, and they frequently work for a production for only one day, yet they are considered employees. A day laborer who works for twenty different contractors in twenty days would also be considered an employee (were he not being paid under the table.) I work with a wide variety of contractors and temporary employees. My legal advisors tell me that the key distictions are autonomy and financial risk. If a fellow works under my direct supervision and gets paid his money no matter how badly the day's shooting goes, more than likely he's an employee. When the benefit accrues to the employee (contractor) intentional misclassification is rarely pursued by the authorities; as long as Uncle Sam gets his cut, he doesn't really care who pays. It's when the benefit accrues to the employer that the taxman, osha, etc take an interest. Years ago companies used "independent contractor" status to avoid provide the benefits and work-place protections that employees would be entitled to. I'd guess that many studios are not as scruppulous as Mr. Quasar's, and it's easy to imagine a lot of low hanging fruit if an IRS auditor ever took an interest. The penalties for failing to make proper Social Security and Medicare withholding/contributions are stiff! -T.C. [Link]
SyberScott Senior Member 1462 Posts 1/03	Posted - Apr 21 2004 : 7:47PM Yes most XXX Performers are considered Independent Contractors paid by the sex scene or sex act agreed upon by the studio & the performer. Wondering if contract stars for Vivid, Wicked, JKP, & others pay for all their stars' medical benefits among other benefits you would find at a regular non-porn job? I know the other (non-contract) pornstars have to pay for their own medical coverage on their own. [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Apr 21 2004 : 7:47PM The independent contractors - employees debate in porn was covered by Clyde DeWitt (a law professional who wrote a monthly column for AVN) in the legal pages of AVN some years ago. I don't remember what his conclusions were but I guess somebody who is actually interested in it can take the time to look it up. cochise said: "Forgive my density, I'm working with a testosterone laden brain." [Link]
TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - Apr 21 2004 : 7:55PM Walter Burns wrote: The independent contractors - employees debate in porn was covered by Clyde DeWitt (a law professional who wrote a monthly column for AVN) in the legal pages of AVN some years ago. I don't remember what his conclusions were but I guess somebody who is actually interested in it can take the time to look it up. Click to expand The excutive summary of Barister DeWitt's opinion is: It depends... and Better safe than sorry... Spoken like a true lawyer. -T.C. [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Apr 21 2004 : 8:01PM TonyC wrote: The excutive summary of Barister DeWitt's opinion is: It depends... and Better safe than sorry... Spoken like a true lawyer. -T.C. Click to expand Wouldn't a true lawyer add: Better safe than sorry... , so pay me lots of money to cover your ass? rjk13 said: "The profane invective she spews at us pitiful wankers, with cum dripping from her face, at the end of scene, almost sent me running. Fortunately I had already popped, so I couldn't move." Edited by - Walter Burns on 4/21/2004 8:05:08 PM [Link]
Renee Member 765 Posts 8/03	Posted - Apr 21 2004 : 8:29PM Whether a person is considered an employee or an independent contractor, they would still have to follow relevant safety/health regulations if such regulations exist. Where I have worked (chemical plants and laboratories, covered by OSHA regulations), any person who is physically on our site has to be provided with the proper safety equipment (safety glasses, hardhats, safety gloves, etc.) It makes no difference what their status is. We do have people - usually professors who come and consult for a day, and who are paid by the hour - who while they are on sight, must abide by company and OSHA rules. There aren't two sets of rules for different classes of people. We also have construction crews, or outside contractors like electricians, who can come on site, and again, they have to abide by the rules. I dare say, if it weren't for government oversight, chemical companies would be more lax about safety and health issues. Just someone, especially a union worker, simply saying, "I'm gonna call in OSHA," is enough to get the management to wake up and pay attention to any worker concerns. [Link]
M.B. Senior Member 1679 Posts 2/01	Posted - Apr 21 2004 : 9:36PM What about pharmaceutical companies that pay people to test out experimental medications on themselves that can possibly compromise a persons health. Are these people that are paid to take these trial medications considered employees? and if so, why are these companies allowed to put peoples health at risk? There must be some kind of loophole around this law about the risk factor. Couldn't porn companies just decide to pay cash under the table and say that the talent are nothing more than exhibitionists that want to be filmed? Or this: they can classify the performers as having been paid an "appearance fee" only, and that any act they perform has not been paid for, only their appearance in front of the camera. What the performers decide to do in front of that camera is of thier own choosing. Ever see escort listing at eros-guide, a lot of them at the bottom of the page say that any money exchanged is for companionship only and not sex, so they can't get busted for the advertisement alone. Edited by - M.B. on 4/21/2004 9:38:47 PM [Link]

Renee Member 765 Posts 8/03	Posted - Apr 21 2004 : 11:21PM Drug companies are not allowed to knowingly put people's lives at risk. You may want to familiarize yourself with how new drugs receive approval from the FDA. A drug must be proven to be both safe and effective. By safe, this means that at the dosages needed to treat a condition, the drug does not cause unacceptable side effects. These safety tests are always done first, at low dosages first, then the companies will test at increasing dosages (not always in the same round of tests). If they can find safe levels, then the next round is done, on testing the effectiveness of the drug in treating a condition, compared to whatever drug is currently used for that condition already. At all parts of this process, the drug companies have to report the side effects, how severe, and how many people experience them. If they are too severe, and the drug is no more effective than something already out there, they are not likely to win approval. There are classifications for different types of illnesses, of course. Chemotherapy for cancer has numerous side effects, often severe, but the trade-off is worth it since the disease is life-threatening. The same with AIDS drugs. However, side effects like hair loss or excessive nausea/vomiting would be unacceptable in an antibiotic. The people who sign up for drug trials do sign release forms. They are not employees or contractors - they aren't being paid to do a job (unlike porn performers). Their motivations are entirely different - they want to participate in furthering the development of treatments for serious illnesses, they want access to the latest if not entirely proven treatments out there, and so on. These people still need to have a good understanding of what they are signing up for, that they are not guarenteed a cure of their condition, and that they are likely to have unknown side effects. As long as they understand this up front, I'm okay with it. [Link]
Shylock Spieglergirls.com "Patron of the Tarts" 2431 Posts 3/03	Posted - Apr 22 2004 : 12:32AM Walter Burns wrote: The independent contractors - employees debate in porn was covered by Clyde DeWitt (a law professional who wrote a monthly column for AVN) in the legal pages of AVN some years ago. I don't remember what his conclusions were but I guess somebody who is actually interested in it can take the time to look it up. Click to expand Clyde DeWitt wrote in the January 2004 AVN: "Notably, the EDD in California takes the position that performers and crew are all employees, leaving the producer with the responsibility for three years of taxes even if they weren't taken out at the time. The IRS has taken that position as well. Accordingly, producers are advised to pay the cast and crew as employees." For the entire article ---> Click here! SHYLOCK "Patron of the Tarts" Spieglergirls.com [Link]
M.B. Senior Member 1679 Posts 2/01	Posted - Apr 22 2004 : 8:17AM Renee, I must disagree with you on this. There is a company called Biovail that PAYS people to take experimental medication. I know this because a friend of mine needed money badly and so he went and did it. He signed a release and was PAID to take the medication. They have ads on the radio that air on a regular basis about paying for medical trials. Edited by - M.B. on 4/22/2004 8:20:09 AM [Link]
Renee Member 765 Posts 8/03	Posted - Apr 22 2004 : 9:53AM I'll add more to my post about drug trials. Looking at some ads in my local newspaper, they do say that people will get monetary compensation for their time, travel expenses or effort. Is this the same as a salary? I leave it up to the IRS to determine if that is the case. If this company BioVail is allowing people to sign up for drug trials, who don't have the conditions that the drug is being tested for, or who don't qualify because of some pre-existing illness, or BioVail isn't disclosing the risks to the patients, then the company could be in big trouble with the FDA (along with the pharmaceutical company that commissioned the study). There was a scandal a few years back here in our area, where there are many drug companies, in which a doctor was recruiting people for testing a new heart medication. Some of these patients should have been excluded because of serious illnesses. All the studies the doctor did had to be trashed, some people did have some adverse health effects, and the drug company was fined by the FDA for not overseeing the trials more carefully. I believe the doctor was investigated by the State Board of Medical Examiners, as well. There are risks to drug trials, I am not disputing that. Persons who sign up for them should not go into them blindly, they could get hurt. But even in this arena, there is government oversight. All these studies are done so a drug can get FDA approval (not an easy process, very expensive and takes 5-10 years on average), not to produce an entertainment product. Rather a different scenario from porn. I've had some personal experience with drug trials. My brother tried to sign my father up for a trial for a potential Alzheimers' drug. When I called the company carrying out the testing, it turned out that a person who had had a stroke could not be on the trial. This excluded my father from qualifying for the testing, though my brother was unaware of this. People need to ask a lot of questions before they go in on these trials, both the testers and the patients. Edited by - Renee on 4/22/2004 9:59:06 AM [Link]
Renee Member 765 Posts 8/03	Posted - Apr 22 2004 : 10:07AM I looked at some ads in my local paper for drug trials, and they do say that people will be compensated for their time, travel expenses or effort. Is this the same as a salary, or considered income by the IRS. I leave that up to them to decide. If this company BioVail is not disclosing the full risks to trial participants, if they are allowing people who should not be in on the trial to sign up for them, or if they mislead people into thinking that they are getting FDA-approved treatments when they are not (these are experiments), then they could be in trouble with the FDA if someone filed a complaint. Several years ago, there was a doctor here in our area who was running a trial for a new heart medication. He allowed people to sign up, who should have been excluded because of pre-existing conditions. Someone got seriously ill, and there was an investigation by the FDA. The upshot was all the trials the doctor did had to be trashed, the drug company that was paying for the trial was fined by the FDA for not monitoring the trial more closely, and the doctor was investigated by the State Board of Medical Examiners. So, even in this arena, there is government oversight, on numerous levels. People who sign up for trials should not go into them blindly, and should be made aware of the risks. Plus, this is all being done so a company can win FDA approval for a new drug (not an easy thing, takes 5-12 years and millions of dollars), not produce an entertainment product, unlike the porn industry. [Link]