There are a lot of performers who really don't care or notice in these situations, which sets a low standard for health. I would think it is the worst part of being in porn. On the other hand, if someone shows up oozing, and the producer has thousands of bucks on the line, you can bet a lot of them want to get it done regardless. LA Direct has a zillion girls on its roster, they could dispatch a replacement in a heartbeat. So the attitude probably has little effect on the agency. If some girl is sidelined with an infection for two weeks, it's just work for someone else on the roster. There's a cynicism there that is typical of the industry in a lot of ways. Edited by - skronker on 3/31/2008 12:47:24 PM
Thats gross but probably pretty standard. THey pass around diseases all the time. Im glad someone stood up for themselves instead of just accepting a disease.
+ 1 fucking million to Veronique! I don't know ya lady, but I'm happy to hear you stuck up for yourself. I can't tell you how many times I've been on a set and sent a guy home for having obvious outbreak/infection. And you know what it's so easy for them to blame it on me because I'm just a "young girl". People's egos in this business are absolutely abhorring at times. I try to protect my health (and she said it) they call me a diva, or a bitch-and the worst of all tell people I just don't want to fuck! Hah! Of course there are people who do porn and don't like sex, I've fucked a few. But it's pretty obvious at this point that I like to fuck, suck, gag, ok you get the point. But would I really jeopardize my reputation just because "I didn't feel like fucking?" Fuck no! There have been days where I was literally sick and I still did a scene, because my career depends on it. I had a director pull me to the side and say, "listen I've been married three times, two of the women were porn stars, I know how it is when you're just not into it certain days." It took all the will power in my tiny body and fat head to not punch him, or say something that would make the situation worse. There's only been one time where the director was cool about sending someone home, and that was painfully obvious! Glad to see someone else fighting for her/their rights :) the fuck junkie ♠
+1 Veronique +1 Michael Fattorosi - I love when an attorney counsels not to hire an attorney.
[Link]
Narcissus Deactivated User
Love Thyself 418 Posts 1/08
Posted - Apr 1 2008 : 11:25AM
yes, i agree with Michael about working out problems when possible. but the problem now is that Derek Hay will deduct the kill fee money from Veronique's payroll checks and there's nothing she can do to stop it. not sure how much money is involved here, but why should she need to pay for anything? she showed up to her scene healthy and ready. she will need some kind of assistance making sure she isn't forced to pay anything. L.A. Direct is notoriously known for "stealing" money from it's own talent. this whole "kill fee" thing is just another way to do it. has anyone ever heard of talent paying a "kill fee" in the mainstream entertainment business? yes, the adult industry should be more regulated to mirror the mainstream biz. there's at least alot more structure there. we need to know who the unhealthy girl is and who her agent is. i'd like to know if that girl is being held accountable for showing up to a set with an infection and not properly taking care of herself.
yikes, you really want the adult industry to be more regulated? So that condoms would be mandated for every scene? So performers would need to be HSV-2 free to perform? It would kill the industry. People would flock to European porn and American companies would go out of business. I'm with Michael, the government needs to stay out of porn as much as possible.
[Link]
Narcissus Deactivated User
Love Thyself 418 Posts 1/08
Posted - Apr 1 2008 : 12:29PM
i think you're taking it a bit extreme. there's alot of room for regulation as far as how performers are treated in regards to their general welfare, health and fair business practices. i don't think condoms have anything to do with this discussion. Edited by - narcissus on 4/1/2008 12:30:15 PM
I wouldn't put anything past a Republican controlled government. Many Republicans hate porn and would love to see it destroyed. Making a mandatory condom policy in the name of protecting the performer's "general welfare [and] health" would be a clever way for them to deal a big blow to the American pornography industry. Anti-pornography activists know that most porn is protected by the courts, so if they could use an underhanded technique to get at porn, they would seize it. Of course condoms have to do with this discussion. We're talking about STDs here.
There is room, however, it has to be a balancing act. Kill fees have been established because there is a contractual basis for such, but they can be harshly imposed. A director/production company will lose money if a performer at the last minute changes their mind about doing a scene. It can be hard to replace a girl. Some performers are not interchangeable. I suspect this situation could have been prevented before the scene even started. The director should have killed the scene and/or replaced the infected performer and/or changed the scene to a b/g, if possible. Granted his location fee may have increased because he may have had to wait on a new performer and if there was an agreement for a kill fee on this shoot, that should have been charged to the performer that showed up infected, not Veronique. Everyone would have been safe, and if a kill fee was necessary, then the person responsible for the problem could have paid. Sometimes the obvious is not so obvious to everyone.While I am not a First Amendment attorney, there may be a First Amendment right to performing a hardcore scene without condoms. Federal law trumps state law even in situations of employee health and safety.Yes, there was a lawsuit against Kim Basinger for backing out of Boxing Helena. Main Line Pictures wanted a $5 million kill fee. [ invalid url ] Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com
Edited by - pornlaw on 4/1/2008 2:31:28 PM
[Link]
Narcissus Deactivated User
Love Thyself 418 Posts 1/08
Posted - Apr 1 2008 : 2:45PM
sounds like Chicken Little and the sky falling. we likely have a new Democratic Administration coming into the White House shortly. i have doubts the Dems are going to be chasing down porn when they hit office. i believe the porn industry is in for more relaxed times under the incoming Administration. not worse. and what i meant about condoms not even entering into this discussion is that it's just ridiculous to stretch it all the way to actually believing the industry would get that deeply regulated. the chances of laws being made to force condoms on performers are way too remote to merit discussion. relax Chicken Little... the sky is not falling.
lol, in the movie, Chicken Little was right :) But, we'll see. Regulation can be a slippery slope. In regards to the presidential elections, the Rasmussen poll taken today has McCain beating either Clinton or Obama in the general election. Thanks Hillary for staying in the race. Edit: strange, the Rasmussen page doesn't let me link to it. Here is a quote from the page..."Looking ahead to the General Election, John McCain is leading Barack Obama 47% to 41%. He leads Hillary Clinton 48% to 41%" Edited by - redclayfh on 4/1/2008 3:06:40 PM
[Link]
Narcissus Deactivated User
Love Thyself 418 Posts 1/08
Posted - Apr 1 2008 : 3:11PM
lol @ another Republican being voted into the White House after these last grueling 7 years. it's not gonna happen. i'll give up porn for a whole year if a Democrat isn't elected!
I read your blog you magnificent bastard! 274 Posts 12/05
Posted - Apr 1 2008 : 4:13PM
I hope they aren't using those Diebold voting machines again this next election. True story: BofA has a Diebold ATM in my neighborhood. I went to make a cash deposit and put five twenty dollar bills in the machine. It counted one of them and only credited my account $20. I guess four of the bills were liberal and one was conservative and it only counted the conservative one. No really it ate $80. Back on track - VV is absolutely right to stick to her guns.
You see narcissus, because of this divisive campaign, people like Shagdog are going to vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee (the reverse as well...very few African Americans will vote for Hillary if she gets it). The Democrats should have had a really easy time winning the election, but because of many reasons, they might blow it. The problem is that once a member of a party wins their party's nomination, they start catering to the center. Because this campaign is dragging on, Hillary and Obama have to keep appealing to their leftist base. This will alienate moderates and people on the right. I'm going to hold you to your no porn promise [:p)]
With due respect, you're misstating that situation. Kim Bassinger breached her acting agreement with Main Line by flatly refusing to appear in the Picture. She wasn't assessed a "kill fee" nor did Main Line get one. Main Line sued her in court and received an award for damages based upon the breach. Of course, Main Line sought to settle the agreement out of court prior to trial but, even had a settlement been agreed to, that still would not have equated with a "kill fee" in any legal sense. There is absolutely no precedent in the mainstream movie business for the contractual assessment of "kill fees" by a producer or the deduction of "kill fees" by an agent for remittance to a producer. Although I'm no labor law expert, my guess is that a provision in any agency agreement providing for its deduction of kill fees from a performer's compensation is completely impermissible under the California state licensing laws. Whether people let Derek Hay get away with it is another matter.
Thats only before I go to jail over it. I love porn but not enough to go to jail over it.lol As a matter of fact I destroyed 5 Traci Lords tapes for that reason.
Yes I am, nice catch, but there is legal precedent for actors ultimately being responsible for increased costs or lost profits based upon their refusal to live up to their obligations. By the way, if my memory serves me correctly, I do not believe there was a written agreement between Ms Basinger and Main Line. Much like the situation in a porn production. Producers can/may/will lose money if a performer breeches her/his agreement and pulls out of a scene at the last minute. A kill fee is akin to a liquidated damages clause in a contract. It may not make the producer whole, but it is usually a bargained for agreement. Penalties are never allowed in contractual relationships but liquidated damages are. In a situation where a scene gets canceled by a performer and the performer knows going in that if she/he cancels less than ____ hours/days (a reasonable period of time before the shoot) she/he will pay the producer $_______ money (a reasonable fee) for such cancellation. I see no problems with it. However, it must be reasonable and fairly calculated to the increase in costs the producer will experience. Kills fees, while not an industry standard in mainstream, are one in adult. In order to determine the validity of contractual relationships, the court can always call upon expert witnesses to determine what "industry standards" might be. I am not saying that Veronique should have been charged a kill fee though. And how the kill fee payment is made to the producer is another issue. Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com Edited by - pornlaw on 4/1/2008 7:41:15 PM
Your memory serves you incorrectly. There was detailed written deal correspondence going back and forth between Kim Bassinger's agents and attorneys, on the one hand, and Main Line, on other hand. The court found that such correspondence, when taken together, constituted a binding written contract.No question.No, it's not akin. First, liquidated damages are awarded by a court, and only then following a judicial determination that a breach of contract has actually occurred. Second, liquidated damages provisions are not self-executing. They serve only as a guide to the court in cases where actual damages are difficult or impossible to calculate, and such provisions may always be ignored if the court finds that their enforcement would constitute a penalty or cause a forfeiture on the part of the defendant.That formulation begs the question. See above.Aside from questions of legal enforceability, the practice's "reasonableness" in any given case depends, in part, upon the relative bargaining power of the parties (which is a ridiculous notion when the performer's own agent is conspiring with the producer to ram such a provision down the performer's throat). [Ooops! An unfortunate image in the context of porn!]The fact that it's a standard practice in the industry doesn't speak directly to the question of its legality or enforceability.Sure. And I, for one, would love to see the validity of that practice determined at trial.We agree on that one.It sure is. The agency's deduction of the "kill fee" from the performer's fees and its subsequent remittance of the "kill fee" to the producer is as good as theft.
[Link]
Narcissus Deactivated User
Love Thyself 418 Posts 1/08
Posted - Apr 1 2008 : 10:12PM
Derek Hay has bragged in interviews that it was he that helped get "kill fees" to be a regular occurence in the adult industry. i don't believe it's legit whatsoever to steal the talents money. Mr. Hay exploits the many conflicts of interest he has around the industry to his fullest benefit. surely he conspires with the producers on this issue. we may suppose that he even had an ongoing business relationship with the producer in question of Veronique's incident. a producer that uses L.A. Direct's talent frequently knows once they book one of their models, they'll either get a scene shot or a "kill fee" paid by Derek (deducted from a girls payroll checks). it's all pretty dirty and amounts to nothing more than extortion/stealing. i've also heard stories where agents have collected "kill fees" from talent by deducting it from their payroll checks yet the producers never knowing anything about it or even requested a kill fee be paid. Edited by - narcissus on 4/1/2008 10:15:01 PM
Very nice Bob!!! While I may not agree with all of your points, you make excellent argument. I too would like to see it tested legally, as well as other standard practices in the industry. I certainly reserve my right to change my mind at a future point in time, if presented with the "right" case to test the legality and enforceability of "kill fees." Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com
I know for fact there are 7 production companies that have a 48 hr. kill fee agreement with Derek and LA Direct. And its not every director either, just 1 select director from each company. Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com
Unfortunately, no one with money or power appears to have an incentive to put Derek Hay out of business for his unethical and illegal business practices. If I were a litigator, this would be a great pro bono matter to take on.
This is intriguing. What's their angle? Is it like the shell game -- as in, "guess which shell the kill fee agreement is hidden under"? Is this a strategy to avoid a claim of restraint against trade?
i am not sure who has told you this, but the normal actor/actress does NOT work whith someone who obviously has a herpes or whatever vaginal infection. Maybe i never worked at that end of the industry, but i have never worked with someone who had an outbreak of anything. I have been on plenty sets where girls where sent away, or been called to reschedule because of some sort of outbreak, and i am not talking baout what has been tested at aim. But any other infection you have, you dont work. its very simple, maybe i got lucky to work with the right companies, the right people, the right agent, but catching and spreading is defenitely NOT considered part of the job!
You don't know her? Well it's time for you to meet then and do a scene together. You're both very high on my favorites list. And I agree 100% with you both as regards guarding your health.
I'm on Veronique's side on this one. No job is worth this kind of garbage. If a performer is sick, you don't to get their sickness. This is irresponsible on the part of the porn company for not checking. If I went to my job, and my employer expected me to work in unsafe conditions, they could be sued if they try to take any negative action against me for walking off the job. If they try to sue Veronique, I'm pretty sure she'll have grouns to countersue. No one should have to fulfill a contract that requires them to expose themselves to an infection. That agent should be contact the porn company and asking them why they tried to make their performer sick, which would prevent her from working for quite a while. Just not a good agent IMO.
You want a toe? I can get you a toe 1131 Posts 4/06
Posted - Apr 5 2008 : 2:38AM
... Edited by - wheat on 4/5/2008 2:39:05 AM
[Link]
Narcissus Deactivated User
Love Thyself 418 Posts 1/08
Posted - Apr 5 2008 : 6:51AM
i'm almost willing to bet that L.A. Direct Models/Derek Hay has already deducted the supposed "kill fee" from Veronique's payroll checks. so, what does she do about that now? what can she do? and if she does try to pursue relief in this matter, how much of a dick will Derek be and how difficult will he make it for her in the adult industry? all questions that need to be addressed. maybe some cool lawyer that post here will help the girl out pro-bono. God knows this isn't the first time she or another girl has been duped out of money by an agent for dubious policies they've made up.
I already said I would take her call. From what I have been told by someone close to her is she has already worked it out and everything is fine. Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com
[Link]
Narcissus Deactivated User
Love Thyself 418 Posts 1/08
Posted - Apr 5 2008 : 1:05PM
hmmm. i wonder if that means she just sucked it up and let it go so she didn't have any trouble from Derek Hay.
yea from what I read Veronique already cleared everything up on her blog... by the by pornlaw...helping starlets ever land you in this scenario? http://tour.brazzers.com/tour/?action=scene&tab=trailer&scene_id=2965 to you if it did
I don't think backing down is something Veronique Vega does.I don't think she would back down from a grizzly bear. Edited by - Shagdog on 4/6/2008 3:52:51 PM
[ invalid url ] here is a link to the updated blog
[Link]
Narcissus Deactivated User
Love Thyself 418 Posts 1/08
Posted - Apr 7 2008 : 3:41PM
ummm, yea... and? i still don't see where everything had been "cleared up." and although i don't personally know Derek Hay, from what i've heard of him, i wouldn't imagine that he gave even an inch. he probably still charged her the kill fee and took it out of her payroll. but i guess only he & Veronica know the answer to that. but from reading what she wrote... ("I realize I can’t expect to always be treated like a mainstream actress in this industry. I made the decision to hop in and you have to take the good with the bad.") ... sounds to me like she just took it on the chin and has let that one go.
[Link]
A-ten Deactivated User
581 Posts 8/07
Posted - Apr 9 2008 : 5:20AM
Maybe that agent feels he can push around his contract workers, I don't know. I just know legally Veronique most likely would win the case. It might help set standards in the industry. Don't show up with an infection or the porn company has to eat the cost. I thought the performers were getting tested on a monthly basis? A performer with an infection should not be allowed to spread it. I can't imagine making a sex worker go down on a performer with an infection. That is just sickening. I perform security worker and I know that my employer has to provide protective equipment for us to perform first aid and any job that might expose us to a hazardous substance or sickness. It is required by law. No idea why a porn company would be any different. If they don't provide a safe environment to work and expose the contract performer to hazardous conditions or illness, then that would terminate the contract for unreasonable expectations beyond the purview of the contract. It most likely would fall under one of those grey legal areas that would require a court hearing. I imagine a "kill fee" is less expensive than taking this to court and fighting it. So it's probably not going to happen. Be an expensive fight and probably piss a ton of people on the production side of the porn business off. So I would imagine it will be ignored.
Remember that NA Mia Rose/Christian scene? While everyone was discussing how shitty it was and Rose and Christian threw mud at each other over staph infections and crap camera sex, I just remember I could not believe that it even existed. That Christian didn't say, "That girl is sick. I'm not fucking her." I can't even imagine how painful it was for her. Vega's writings have explained why no one called the scene off. This is one of the many sides of the porn industry I prefer to pretend does not exist.
Veronique Vega @ Adult Empire
Posted - Mar 31 2008 : 12:44PM
I don't need entertainment at the expense of anyone's health.
to you if it did