A reader sends this scenario, lets say this reader knows more than a little about the law. Yesterdays post was interesting, this scenario takes it even further
This is hypothetical. One model release term (in a three-page release) requires female performer to use Plan B pills on request of producer. It provides that if she fails or refuses to do so and a pregnancy ensues, she will become financially liable to producer in an amount equal to any sum which a court orders a producer or male talent to pay for support of the child. What lawyers would call liability for “contribution” or “indemnification”.
After creampie ejaculation, model states that she’s not on any birth control. Producer gets Plan B pills, has them delivered to her doorstep. Months later, she calls and informs male talent or producer that she’s pregnant. Asked about Plan B pills, she states that she did not take them. Producer and male talent put on their seatbelts cuz this may get nasty.
I’ve asked some domestic relations attorneys their thoughts on whether such a term would be valid/enforceable or “void as against public policy” and none of them have expressed any definite “no”.
It does not seem that there are any well-known cases about these issues – because it’s only in the world of porn that people enter into written contracts to have sex and deal with consequences of sex. That never happens in any other context that I know of. As a result, there are few to no reported cases.
I asked my friend this one and she shook her head and asked if I do this to her on purpose. She sidestepped and said that she wasn’t an expert on contract law. But her thoughts are that it might hold up (note no commitment on this one). We kicked it around a bit. We agreed that she can not be forced to take the Plan B pill no matter what the contract says, so assuming that does not void the entire contract, which depending on the wording it may or may not, The producer would not be liable for child support but the performer could be. The producer could be held responsible for financial damages depending on the circumstances…did either performer request to wear a condom and were not allowed? We both thought that could be a big factor in the civil trial, maybe even the swing factor.
One thing about contract law is that while you may sign away certain rights in a contract, you cannot absolve yourself of responsibility for a criminal act via the contract. If the law requires a condom and the producer knowingly breaks that law then all bets are off on how it might play out.
This also answers the questions I get about what if there’s a contract…..if the contract is an effort to do an end run around a law it is void, period.
Bear in mind that I am not an attorney and I am not offering any legal advice here, just my opinions and those of my friend(s) who is an attorney, but not having any specifics even these thoughts are just general conversation about a set of what ifs.
That said…This is interesting…what do y’all think?