SAN DIEGO – Last month, I wrote about a lawsuit which was first filed in 2016, one involving “Jane Doe” plaintiffs who accused the operators of GirlsDoPorn.com of duping women into performing in porn, in part by falsely claiming the videos would be distributed in very limited fashion.
In response to those claims, attorneys for the defendants point to model agreements signed by the plaintiffs, as well as a recorded statement given by each, in which the plaintiffs agree that they understand the potential distribution of the images and footage isn’t limited, at all.
According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, when women who responded to ads posted by the site operators ask where the videos will be distributed, “the Defendants assure them that they will not post the video online, they will not distribute the video in the United States, and they will keep each woman anonymous…. The Defendants represent the videos will be on DVDs overseas and for private use. If needed for convincing, The Defendants provide a reference woman who previously shot a video (but whose video is not yet released), to vouch for The Defendants and promise the same security, limited distribution, and anonymity.”
In answer to these claims, the lawyers for the defendants argue that there was no fraud involved here – just a lot of regret on the part of young women who chose to make pornographic films.
“Plaintiffs are twenty-two adult women who each entered into one or more written contracts to star in one or more pornographic videos,” the defendants state in their response to the complaint. “The written contract was a single page document called a ‘Model/Talent Release’ which each Plaintiff signed…. It repeatedly specified that the videos could be used anywhere, anyhow, for any purpose chosen by the producer on behalf of the video’s owner.”
The defendants also cite recorded statements given by women who sign the model release, in which models state: “I hereby give the photographer, his legal representative and assigns, those for whom the photographer is acting, and those acting with his permission, or his employees, the right and permission to copyright, and/or use, reuse and/or publish and republish videos, films, pictures or portraits of me… for any purpose whatsoever, including the right to sub license such rights; including the use of any printed matter in conjunction therewith.”
As noted by Jenna Greene writing for Law.com, the case may hinge on whether the plaintiffs can persuade the judge (the lawsuit is a bench trial) that the “contracts were a product of fraud” and that the women “reasonably relied on the false representations when they agreed to make the movies.”
While the conflicting accounts offered in the case are interesting, without having been present at the time the contracts were signed and the video statements recorded, those of us on the outside looking in can’t say with any real assurance how this all went down. What we can do is take away key lessons which are true, irrespective of how the GirlsDoPorn case pans out.
First, whenever you are preparing to sign an agreement, especially an important agreement like a model release, it’s crucial that you understand the terms and effect of that agreement before you sign it. Further, if any of those terms are unacceptable to you, don’t sign the agreement. This is what contract negotiations are for, after all – refining the terms of an agreement until they’re acceptable to all the parties involved.
Now admittedly, this is an easy thing for me to say, sitting in the comfort of an office chair with nobody hovering over me and putting pressure on me to SIGN NOW. If that’s what took place here, if the plaintiffs were coerced in some way, as their complaint suggests, then it’s hardly a fair ‘meeting of the minds,’ which is what contract law is designed to assure.
This brings me to a second point: It’s always a good idea to have an attorney review contracts before you sign them. Among other things, contracts are often written in language that can be confusing to non-attorneys, even if there’s no malicious intent on the part of the people who authored the contract. An attorney will catch things you might miss and alert you to any terms which might be cause for concern — and if the person offering you the contract tells you there’s no time for an attorney to review it, or that it must be executed right now, without delay, this too is a red flag.
For performers who need to travel as part of a gig, to avoid circumstances like the one described in the plaintiffs’ complaint – where the models were allegedly presented with documents to sign “under duress, coercion, and/or while (defendants were) distracting or rushing them” — always ask for model releases and other agreements in advance. Tell the producer, videographer or other responsible party representing the company producing the content that you won’t travel until the entirety of the agreement has been presented for you (and your legal counsel) to read and review.
Any producer, photographer, videographer or studio who doesn’t want to hammer out the details of a work arrangement before the fact is suspect, in my opinion. The terms of their contracts ought to be relatively standard from one individual arrangement to the next, especially if you haven’t negotiated any special terms with them as part of your agreement to perform.
Regardless of what happens with the GirlsDoPorn case, a little caution and due diligence will go a long way in preventing a similar situation from arising out your own agreements. Above all, remember this: Nobody can make you sign a contract you don’t understand or with which you aren’t comfortable. If the details of a contract you’re considering worry you, don’t sign it unless or until your concerns have been addressed to your satisfaction.
Contract stock photo by shho
