A weird thought about "the" law.

[Narman 117]

I was thinking about something kinda odd the other day. I know a little bit about about prostitution laws in Canada. (i.e. communication laws, bawdy house laws) Anyway as far as I can tell almost everything that is illegal would be legal if you filmed, or took pictures. I'm not so sure about the communication side of it, but I don't think its illegal to solicit for the purpose of "acting" or "modeling". And for in-call places the client or the SP could snap a few non identifiable pics and the "bawdy" would be turned into a photography studio or set. I dunno maybe I'm reaching.

[Seymour 3970]

Not sure, but this gives me something else to discuss with my lawyer friend at my next visit. :neutral: Not sure if I'll have an answer to report back...but we'll see. Don't hold me to it.

[d*mm*y 887]

There is that place in Russia, (too lazy to look up the thread I posted last year) they have it set up as a cam house and site. The guys agree to be viewed on live cam and become actors no money is exchanged on the set the guys are volunteers and the ladies are paid from the proceeds of the voyeur watchers. Too my knowledge this would also be legal here in Canada!

[Guest f***2f***]

There is that place in Russia, (too lazy to look up the thread I posted last year) they have it set up as a cam house and site. The guys agree to be viewed on live cam and become actors no money is exchanged on the set the guys are volunteers and the ladies are paid from the proceeds of the voyeur watchers. Too my knowledge this would also be legal here in Canada!

 

I'd be willing to donate my services for such a worthy cause. But that's just me...always thinking of the pleasure of others...I'm a giver really!!!:mrgreen:

[kih 458]

I was thinking about something kinda odd the other day. I know a little bit about about prostitution laws in Canada. (i.e. communication laws, bawdy house laws) Anyway as far as I can tell almost everything that is illegal would be legal if you filmed, or took pictures. I'm not so sure about the communication side of it, but I don't think its illegal to solicit for the purpose of "acting" or "modeling". And for in-call places the client or the SP could snap a few non identifiable pics and the "bawdy" would be turned into a photography studio or set. I dunno maybe I'm reaching.

 

The Crown has the onus to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that indeed a specific law was violated. If doubt can be demonstrated, the Crown has no case.

[Narman 117]

There is that place in Russia, (too lazy to look up the thread I posted last year) they have it set up as a cam house and site. The guys agree to be viewed on live cam and become actors no money is exchanged on the set the guys are volunteers and the ladies are paid from the proceeds of the voyeur watchers. Too my knowledge this would also be legal here in Canada!

I think there is a place like this in Czech Republic, also. It was on a show called "sin cities" or something. Something like this would be very interesting though.

[Guest C*****tte]

In theory this could be a way to deal with the bawdy house laws. Though I think there would be lots of headaches trying to put it practice. You'd have to run it legitimately otherwise the LE would see that things are only being done to circumvent laws.

 

You would have to actually photograph and/or video the acts. You would also have to show ID as proof of age and sign consent/release forms. Also you have to trust whoever has the footage that they will not distribute it.

 

I know most clients of mine would not want even the hint that an appointment is being filmed and that most SPs do not want to be filmed.

[Narman 117]

In theory this could be a way to deal with the bawdy house laws. Though I think there would be lots of headaches trying to put it practice. You'd have to run it legitimately otherwise the LE would see that things are only being done to circumvent laws.

 

You would have to actually photograph and/or video the acts. You would also have to show ID as proof of age and sign consent/release forms. Also you have to trust whoever has the footage that they will not distribute it.

 

I know most clients of mine would not want even the hint that an appointment is being filmed and that most SPs do not want to be filmed.

I agree with you in that the idea isn't very practical, it was merely something to think about. Having said that though, I'm sure there are some guys who love to have a video or pictures as a souvenir. I'd call it the real PSE. The editing could be completely controlled by the SP. They could sell the guy a pic of himself at the moment of orgasm, kinda like amusement parks do when you go on a roller coaster. I'm sure there'd be a few funny pics that would result.

[mod 135639]

Well... the actors are paid (either for performance or royalty) if you are paying and participating in the act then you are obviously in a gray area but I guess if you proved that these movies were being produced and sold that should be reasonable doubt but very few of the ladies would want anything to do with this.

 

I met a guy years ago who made and sold home adult movies (he would film them with a few stationary camera's and one hand held - all by himself) - He was a one man production as he would recruit the women, star in the films and pay the ladies a royalty off the sales. (Before you ask - I don't think he made much of a living doing this so I would not recommend anyone try this).

 

I have also been told that filming adult movies in Ontario is illegal but I can not find any law pertaining to this. I was told the Quebec was legal to do adult film production but this is just what I have heard over the years and I have no confirmation if this is true or not.

 

I know the porn production companies in the USA require you to show a recent STD test (along with proof of age of course) before they hire you and I think you need to have this done every 6 months as well when in the business (I would assume this is required by law but again I have no first hand knowledge of what is law on this topic)... I am also not sure if Canada has any laws regarding this (maybe one of our members know?)

 

...it's a interesting thought but I think Camera's of any kind would scare off most people.

[RubJunky 1954]

This is why I keep a camera with me at all times. In case I get busted I can explain I am a photographer on a photo shoot. Just can't explain why I am naked too....

 

 

:lol:

[loneskater 25635]

Guess I will stick to my story, we are friends.

[Guest C*****tte]

A little background on the legalities of porn (I am part of a sex workers' rights group where I have learned all of this)...

 

STI testing is completed every 30 days and showing your tests before working is required in most porn productions in California - specifically in the LA region. It is not a law. It is a self regulated programme and the tests are managed by http://www.aim-med.org/. They use testing rather than condoms to protect themselves and manage things. Other areas of the USA don't self-regulate in this manner. It varies from production to production. Same thing in Canada.

 

In the USA there is a proof of age law and that is basically a record keeping regulation that requires all porn productions to keep the documentation in a certain manner. It demands very specific forms of ID and very specific ways of keeping your records. It is very controversial too. http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSCView.asp?action=preview&coid=137

 

In Canada you can produce porn as long as it features consenting adults. There are no specific record keeping laws. There are film board reviews that need to be done if you want to sell any hard copies of porn.

 

Examples like what Mod described are fairly common in the Amateur porn world - people self shooting. I know people have made their living doing this. Hiring women and shooting Point of View style. But it is work and a business and not quite the experience a hobbyiest used to more natural forms of activities might enjoy.

[mod 135639]

Thanks for the info Charlotte.

[Guest C*****tte]

Welcome. :-)

 

I wanted to add a couple of things (a bit off topic).

 

I know of some porn performers who also escort and they limit what they offer as escorts and when they work in a duo require the other lady to be AIM certified so that the porn performer can return to LA so that her tests results won't be compromised.

 

There is is this stigma by some escorts (and clients) that porn performers are all disease ridden. I think you cannot stereotype either escorts or porn performers this way.

 

I also wanted to say that the film review is for obscene content not legal age. There are various standards that were somehow decided. I.E. A girl can pee on a guy but a guy cannot pee on a girl. That is too degrading. This is due to a law that was brought in by some American radical feminists - that content degrading to women was illegal. Of course , they never defined that.

[Narman 117]

Welcome. :-)

 

I wanted to add a couple of things (a bit off topic).

 

I know of some porn performers who also escort and they limit what they offer as escorts and when they work in a duo require the other lady to be AIM certified so that the porn performer can return to LA so that her tests results won't be compromised.

 

There is is this stigma by some escorts (and clients) that porn performers are all disease ridden. I think you cannot stereotype either escorts or porn performers this way.

 

I also wanted to say that the film review is for obscene content not legal age. There are various standards that were somehow decided. I.E. A girl can pee on a guy but a guy cannot pee on a girl. That is too degrading. This is due to a law that was brought in by some American radical feminists - that content degrading to women was illegal. Of course , they never defined that.

 

Some of these laws are quite odd too. For example in BDSM porn its not 'illegal' for a guy to whip/spank/slap/name call etc. a woman, but if he were to do it and then have sex with her or do something 'sexual' it is illegal.

In regard to my original post, I meant it in a completely theoretical way.

[Narman 117]

Welcome. :-)

 

I wanted to add a couple of things (a bit off topic).

 

I know of some porn performers who also escort and they limit what they offer as escorts and when they work in a duo require the other lady to be AIM certified so that the porn performer can return to LA so that her tests results won't be compromised.

 

There is is this stigma by some escorts (and clients) that porn performers are all disease ridden. I think you cannot stereotype either escorts or porn performers this way.

 

I also wanted to say that the film review is for obscene content not legal age. There are various standards that were somehow decided. I.E. A girl can pee on a guy but a guy cannot pee on a girl. That is too degrading. This is due to a law that was brought in by some American radical feminists - that content degrading to women was illegal. Of course , they never defined that.

 

Oh and I'd argue that the stereotypes the you feel Sps and clients have towards porn actresses go both ways. I've known a couple gals from MTL whove done some 'acting' and they seem to feel that they're 'not like that' or 'its not the same' when essentially (minus the camera man, sound guy, and they director) it is the same act. In Jenna Jameson's book she goes on about how she not a whore(her words), because she gets to choose who she fucks, and what she's ok with performing, or how it's safe because everyone is tested. I think most SPs do all these things too, in fact they are probably safer since most hollywood porn is sans rubbers. Anyway just a thought.