Thoughts on using content of models that passed away

[amacontent]

What do you guys think. Especially models that were young and left us too early, One of my best friends Amber Rayne left us way early. I remember being with her at a Sharks game in San Jose and actually talked about this very thing. She actually said she wanted her videos to be used long after shes gone.

[CurrentlySober]

I see zero issue with it. They didn't withdraw Star Wars when Carrie Fisher died did they? No, she played Princess Lia, and her role lives on (Even bringing her BACK after death, with CGI)

Why is porn different? It isn't - The girls were just as happy playing the role of 'Slut #3 with pigtails' as Carrie was playing the Princess...

The only reason I wouldn't use legitimate content I had paid for and shot would be if the deceased's relatives requested I take it down. Which I would do in a heartbeat.

The only reason I would think less of someone else using content of a dead pornstar, would be if they were billing it it as 'Her Last Scene Before Her Suicide' or something, sensationalising her death...

But business is business, and if you have invested time and money to create and produce a product that is intended for sale... Then for sale it should be.

Besides, 95% of the viewers wouldn't know they had died anyway... & the 5% that did? Well probably they would be pleased that they had got to see another performance by her, and lament the fact that there would be no more...

[pornlaw]

As long as it's the content that they signed the model release for... no legal issues...

If someone decides to take that content and create AI images/videos out of it... that's a completely different situation.

[amacontent]

Nice explanations guys Much appreciated. And Porn Law wasnt really thinking of legal issue. more ethical.

[OneHungLo]

If a family member contacted me asking to remove it I would definitely take it down but otherwise I’d leave it.

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

As long as it's the content that they signed the model release for... no legal issues...

If someone decides to take that content and create AI images/videos out of it... that's a completely different situation.

Case closed . . .

[TheLegacy]

I do understand the ethical reasons but keep this in mind - if her family wasn't demanding all content be removed from the internet then you're fine ethically - that then is your feelings. Either way you're covered but I do understand. How about this - she shot the content with you - she was young - beautiful and obviously her fans loved her - then I don't think she would mind being remembered in that way. My two cents.

[AmeliaG]

The main reason to appear in media is to be immortalized. Once in a blue moon, I'll remove content, but I think doing it because someone died or because their unsupportive relatives don't like it ... well, half the point is for future generations to be able to see the talent when they were young and beautiful and sexy and compelling on camera.

If someone produces content which talent only participates in for money and typically regrets doing and typically is sad is online, then there might be ethical issues whether or not the model is alive.

[Arnox]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

The main reason to appear in media is to be immortalized. Once in a blue moon, I'll remove content, but I think doing it because someone died or because their unsupportive relatives don't like it ... well, half the point is for future generations to be able to see the talent when they were young and beautiful and sexy and compelling on camera.

If someone produces content which talent only participates in for money and typically regrets doing and typically is sad is online, then there might be ethical issues whether or not the model is alive.

Damn, these were exactly my thoughts. There are really compelling arguments on both sides.

J Mac dying of old age in 2070? Yeah, pretty sure he'd be fine with it.

A 20-something meth addict who got into a few amateur productions to make ends meet and she died of an overdose? Not great.

I think it's best to do a good faith analysis of what you think the person in question would want. What was their personality like? Why were they involved in adult entertainment? Was it a long career? Did they actually enjoy their productions?

[Tasty1]

If you delete dead pornstars, Granny Porn would only be visible a few years.

[Look Chang]

Originally Posted by Tasty1

If you delete dead pornstars, Granny Porn would only be visible a few years.

[plsureking]

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober

I see zero issue with it. They didn't withdraw Star Wars when Carrie Fisher died did they? No, she played Princess Lia, and her role lives on (Even bringing her BACK after death, with CGI)

Why is porn different? It isn't - The girls were just as happy playing the role of 'Slut #3 with pigtails' as Carrie was playing the Princess...

The only reason I wouldn't use legitimate content I had paid for and shot would be if the deceased's relatives requested I take it down. Which I would do in a heartbeat.

The only reason I would think less of someone else using content of a dead pornstar, would be if they were billing it it as 'Her Last Scene Before Her Suicide' or something, sensationalising her death...

But business is business, and if you have invested time and money to create and produce a product that is intended for sale... Then for sale it should be.

Besides, 95% of the viewers wouldn't know they had died anyway... & the 5% that did? Well probably they would be pleased that they had got to see another performance by her, and lament the fact that there would be no more...

they'll all die eventually

#

[mikeet]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

If someone decides to take that content and create AI images/videos out of it... that's a completely different situation.

Yea like thats not gonna happen :/

[k0nr4d]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

If someone decides to take that content and create AI images/videos out of it... that's a completely different situation.

Morally? Or is there some legal reason that cannot be done?

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by k0nr4d

Morally? Or is there some legal reason that cannot be done?

Yes - legal. There are some people who are creating AI images who believe that if they have a signed model release from 10 years ago that gives them rights to recreate content using AI on that particular pornstar/performer.

Legally this issue has yet to be determined by a court.

There's been a few recent lawsuits filed over this issue...

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law...publicity-laws

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/de...ht-of-8578503/

Also, there is a push to make non-consensual porn like deepfakes a criminal offense. A bill was introduced in the US Congress last year and a bill was also introduced in NY State I believe. Depending on the language of the bill, these could also apply to use of images in our business.

Its an evolving area of law.

[DVTimes]

If you go into a funeral parler you can use models who have passed away.

In my experience they are still fresh for 3 days.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by DVTimes

If you go into a funeral parler you can use models who have passed away.

In my experience they are still fresh for 3 days.

And then you wonder why people call you a psycho

[amacontent]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

And then you wonder why people call you a psycho

WTF was that man. I mean who sits in front of the computer just to do say something like that ? I really feel sorry for that guy and hope hes not around children. I mean seriously hope hes not.

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by amacontent

WTF was that man. I mean who sits in front of the computer just to do say something like that ? I really feel sorry for that guy and hope hes not around children. I mean seriously hope hes not.

OK

Shall I post screen grabs of the messages you sent me so people will know what type of person/your company is?

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by amacontent

hope hes not around children. I mean seriously hope hes not.

Are you saying I abuse children?

Is this remark coming from your business?

Why would you say this?

I am tempted to post screen grabs from the messages you sent me as I suspect no one would order from your site once they read them.

[Brad Mitchell]

If I owned a site, I would take it down. Y’all are kidding yourself saying it’s the same as Carrie Fisher in Star Wars. 9/10 times here we are talking about young women who died of drugs or suicide.

Brad

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by DVTimes

If you go into a funeral parler you can use models who have passed away.

In my experience they are still fresh for 3 days.

Have at it: https://www.coffincuties.com/ . . .

[Look Chang]

Originally Posted by DVTimes

If you go into a funeral parler you can use models who have passed away.

In my experience they are still fresh for 3 days.

Even more if bodies are frozen . . .

[plsureking]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

there is a push to make non-consensual porn like deepfakes a criminal offense.

now that is an interesting new term lol

imagine a little AI nerd living in his mom's basement going to jail for fake raping someone.

#

[just a punk]

I feel guilty for watching Michael Jackson's music video, knowing he's dead I have committed that crime because...

[cordoba]

There are at least 5 or 6 girls who have starred in VR porn who have passed away, and so men are still having sex with them in virtual reality.

This feels a bit different to watching Carrie Fisher in Star Wars.

https://www.vrsmash.com/pornstars/244/August_Ames

[geirlur]

I still use the content but I refrain from posting it to social media since it could upset someone that knew the deceased, seeing it like this without forewarning

[The Porn Nerd]

Originally Posted by cordoba

This feels a bit different to watching Carrie Fisher in Star Wars.

Not really. I jacked off to Carrie Fisher in that gold bikini.

[shimmy2]

i cant believe any of this is being discussed or considered after money was paid out and consent forms signed. yall must be richer and have more scruples than me. but left unchecked (esp with amateur models) once you take one down, the line gets longer, and soon you dont' have a site anymore. because youre trying to please video girls/guys who have already been prepaid. please dont be soft leave all the content up you own, sell it forever. anything else is a bad business model, just deal with the heat and hate

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

And then you wonder why people call you a psycho

Don't remember the other thread:
https://m.gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/1365972-slash-posts-sexy-babe.html

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Also, there is a push to make non-consensual porn like deepfakes a criminal offense. A bill was introduced in the US Congress last year and a bill was also introduced in NY State I believe. Depending on the language of the bill, these could also apply to use of images in our business.

Its an evolving area of law.

It is funny, there is never a push to reduce the number of laws and the number of lawyers in the USA.
This is how a society enslaves it's population by shaking financial compensation.
Do you want money? Do you want money?
Then let's have 1 million lawyers and laws for everything !

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

Don't remember the other thread:
https://m.gfy.com/fucking-around-and...sexy-babe.html

i keep saying that GFY must be in a very sorry state if they let him back in just to drum up some traffic

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Not really. I jacked off to Carrie Fisher in that gold bikini.

One of my first infant chubys indeed . . .

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by amacontent

What do you guys think. Especially models that were young and left us too early, One of my best friends Amber Rayne left us way early. I remember being with her at a Sharks game in San Jose and actually talked about this very thing. She actually said she wanted her videos to be used long after shes gone.

Don't do it. She has passed away, and so should any fantasy. Out of respect for her, her family, her work, and to show that the porn industry has at least a few things good about it, retire her images and clips.

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Don't do it. She has passed away, and so should any fantasy. Out of respect for her, her family, her work, and to show that the porn industry has at least a few things good about it, retire her images and clips.

I'm all for fantasies dying down so I'm right here with you . . .

[plsureking]

answer from a content owner:

Originally Posted by shimmy2

i cant believe any of this is being discussed or considered after money was paid out and consent forms signed. yall must be richer and have more scruples than me. but left unchecked (esp with amateur models) once you take one down, the line gets longer, and soon you dont' have a site anymore. because youre trying to please video girls/guys who have already been prepaid. please dont be soft leave all the content up you own, sell it forever. anything else is a bad business model, just deal with the heat and hate

answer from a guy who says he doesn't really work in the industry anymore:

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Don't do it. She has passed away, and so should any fantasy. Out of respect for her, her family, her work, and to show that the porn industry has at least a few things good about it, retire her images and clips.

its that simple

#

[The Porn Nerd]

Bottom line: it all depends on how much cash the dead actress is making you. If it's a lot, you keep it up forever. If it's a little you take it down, who cares (but only if requested).

[Look Chang]

Museums do not remove erotic sculpture of women when the model is dead . . .

[Alex CZ]

I have some old Danny O content and its selling like hot cakes. So, no for me.

[amacontent]

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

If I owned a site, I would take it down. Y’all are kidding yourself saying it’s the same as Carrie Fisher in Star Wars. 9/10 times here we are talking about young women who died of drugs or suicide.

Brad

So if a main stream actor dies of an OD. should all his movies be removed from NetFlix and platforms like that.
Google the list of famous actors dying from OD. Its astounding

[Brad Mitchell]

Originally Posted by amacontent

So if a main stream actor dies of an OD. should all his movies be removed from NetFlix and platforms like that.
Google the list of famous actors dying from OD. Its astounding

We have a fundamental value difference here in how we see the content. You see it the same as Hollywood and for most of this, I just don't. So maybe we just agree to disagree, and that's totally okay. Hollywood pays actors hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of dollars for movies. They're also in the SAG and that has its benefits.

At the low end here, and for MOST instances, we are talking largely about actors paid a few hundred to a thousand or more dollars for a whole spectrum of hardcore activity. In fact, most people come and go in a short period of time, and statistically don't do many scenes. The question (in my mind) isn't what should someone do with a Jenna Jameson or a Bree Olsen, because they're the one percenters, that's our Hollywood. Of course this is completely subjective, but I'm not suggesting that such content come down.

I thought the question here was about the real entry level here of one or multiple scenes. This is what I've seen cross my desk in the past. Usually from surviving family members, usually on people who didn't do very much. Holding on to a piece of truly unimportant content that's already aged when a mom or dad reaches out to tell you that their daughter committed suicide or died of an overdose doesn't really seem worth the rub to me.

Brad

[The Porn Nerd]

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

We have a fundamental value difference here in how we see the content. You see it the same as Hollywood and for most of this, I just don't. So maybe we just agree to disagree, and that's totally okay. Hollywood pays actors hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of dollars for movies. They're also in the SAG and that has its benefits.

At the low end here, and for MOST instances, we are talking largely about actors paid a few hundred to a thousand or more dollars for a whole spectrum of hardcore activity. In fact, most people come and go in a short period of time, and statistically don't do many scenes. The question (in my mind) isn't what should someone do with a Jenna Jameson or a Bree Olsen, because they're the one percenters, that's our Hollywood. Of course this is completely subjective, but I'm not suggesting that such content come down.

I thought the question here was about the real entry level here of one or multiple scenes. This is what I've seen cross my desk in the past. Usually from surviving family members, usually on people who didn't do very much. Holding on to a piece of truly unimportant content that's already aged when a mom or dad reaches out to tell you that their daughter committed suicide or died of an overdose doesn't really seem worth the rub to me.

Brad

Well said but essentially my (economic) point. The 'only shot a few scenes' girl isn't earning you, the producer, that much anyway so take it down and save everyone the hassle. But if Jenna Jameson's mom comes knocking....uh, sorry no.

[amacontent]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Well said but essentially my (economic) point. The 'only shot a few scenes' girl isn't earning you, the producer, that much anyway so take it down and save everyone the hassle. But if Jenna Jameson's mom comes knocking....uh, sorry no.

Hey buddy this thread more an ethical standpoint. Im just curious everyones thoughts.
Lets take Amber Rayne as we were very close. From a financial standpoint she was paid for a product and I continue to use that product. She loved her job and always loved seeing her stuff online.

But on the other point. with classic porn are we saying it should all come down as lots of the performers has passed away. What about August Ames. Should all her content come down. I dont know either way. I have content of her and have not used it.

[Wautier]

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

We have a fundamental value difference here in how we see the content. You see it the same as Hollywood and for most of this, I just don't. So maybe we just agree to disagree, and that's totally okay. Hollywood pays actors hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of dollars for movies. They're also in the SAG and that has its benefits.

At the low end here, and for MOST instances, we are talking largely about actors paid a few hundred to a thousand or more dollars for a whole spectrum of hardcore activity. In fact, most people come and go in a short period of time, and statistically don't do many scenes. The question (in my mind) isn't what should someone do with a Jenna Jameson or a Bree Olsen, because they're the one percenters, that's our Hollywood. Of course this is completely subjective, but I'm not suggesting that such content come down.

I thought the question here was about the real entry level here of one or multiple scenes. This is what I've seen cross my desk in the past. Usually from surviving family members, usually on people who didn't do very much. Holding on to a piece of truly unimportant content that's already aged when a mom or dad reaches out to tell you that their daughter committed suicide or died of an overdose doesn't really seem worth the rub to me.

Brad

Brad has it right here. There's a huge difference between Jenna and some young woman who is struggling and decides to shoot porn for a quick buck. The only way to go about it is to remove, IMHO... everything else will create issues, and also, if you have no feelings about it, it's on you, but you can lose a lot more for something that should be your moral duty.

Like he said, Hollywood has SAG, porn doesn't... and more often times than not, porn talent will be ridiculed and paid peanuts, while the paysite operators will milk the content for all it's worth and re-sell it, recycle it, etc... IP is IP, and nobody is disputing that. You produced it, and you own it. But there will be certain limitations on how you expect to use it 20 years later for example... you would be singing a different tune if it was your wife or your daughter, of course..

[amacontent]

Originally Posted by Wautier

Brad has it right here. There's a huge difference between Jenna and some young woman who is struggling and decides to shoot porn for a quick buck. The only way to go about it is to remove, IMHO... everything else will create issues, and also, if you have no feelings about it, it's on you, but you can lose a lot more for something that should be your moral duty.

Like he said, Hollywood has SAG, porn doesn't... and more often times than not, porn talent will be ridiculed and paid peanuts, while the paysite operators will milk the content for all it's worth and re-sell it, recycle it, etc... IP is IP, and nobody is disputing that. You produced it, and you own it. But there will be certain limitations on how you expect to use it 20 years later for example... you would be singing a different tune if it was your wife or your daughter, of course..

So youre saying whenever a porn model passes away the content should be taken down.
Whats the difference between Jenna and a newbie They are both humans with familys. Now im not saying you wrong. just a friendly discussion.

[wildphoenix]

Originally Posted by OneHungLo

If a family member contacted me asking to remove it I would definitely take it down but otherwise I’d leave it.

I would add that if the model was enjoying what she was doing and made that known, I wouldn't have an ethical issue with it. But if it was a fly by nighter that just wanted a quick buck, I could see the argument for that.

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by Wautier

Brad has it right here. There's a huge difference between Jenna and some young woman who is struggling and decides to shoot porn for a quick buck. The only way to go about it is to remove, IMHO... everything else will create issues, and also, if you have no feelings about it, it's on you, but you can lose a lot more for something that should be your moral duty.

Like he said, Hollywood has SAG, porn doesn't... and more often times than not, porn talent will be ridiculed and paid peanuts, while the paysite operators will milk the content for all it's worth and re-sell it, recycle it, etc... IP is IP, and nobody is disputing that. You produced it, and you own it. But there will be certain limitations on how you expect to use it 20 years later for example... you would be singing a different tune if it was your wife or your daughter, of course..

How about have ethics to begin with and don't shoot anyone who is just desperate and does not really want to do adult work?

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

If I owned a site, I would take it down. Y’all are kidding yourself saying it’s the same as Carrie Fisher in Star Wars. 9/10 times here we are talking about young women who died of drugs or suicide.

Brad

That's a pretty offensive point of view to have about your clients.

It also shows remarkably little knowledge of Carrie Fisher's life story. But that is not the rude part.

[Tasty1]

Is the owner of AFSC already passed away?

[Wautier]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

That's a pretty offensive point of view to have about your clients.

It also shows remarkably little knowledge of Carrie Fisher's life story. But that is not the rude part.

It's not you that anyone (Brad, most notably) would have an issue with or call predatory, it's the "boys". You know that some sites to this day use coercive tactics and lie to talent as well. While you wouldn't shoot anyone who is desperate, they would, and they are the reason why porn has a bad rep.

I mean, you are far more "erotica" than you are porn, in my opinion, so it can't apply to you to begin with, as this is more to do with something distasteful...