On Saturday morning I got a text message from the owner of a big porn agency.
“You were right”
I asked, what can you tell me? here it is in a nutshell.
AHF filed a complaint against one of the agencies represented by LATATA. The complaint was based on the idea that California Labor Law 1700.33 was being violated by porn agencies. That law states that agents can not knowingly send a person to a hazardous work environment. AHF alleges that the agency sent people to porn sets were condoms were not used, even though required by law and that is, according to AHF, a hazardous work environment.
The California Department of Industrial Relations has launched an investigation into that complaint and charges are expected. LATATA is intends to fight on behalf of it’s member.
When I asked if LATATA could expect any help from the producer whose set was alleged to be hazardous, the answer was what was expected….No.
I am sure the FSC will pay it some lip service but I wouldn’t look to them for any help either.
If porners still think they are going to circumvent the condom laws they had better pay close attention to what is happening here. AHF is attacking on multiple fronts, they are equipped to spend a lot of money to see this through and they are preparing for war. The FSC amounts to a bunch of idiots shooting themselves in the foot, Porn had better come together, quick,.
48 Responses
Who is DIR, LATATA and AHF?
Mike Kulich liked this on Facebook.
no suprise
When will the FSC move thier hq to the highway off ramp with a sign reading ” Will Misrepresent You For Food “
How did they know they were shooting without condoms? They must have moles working on the sets.
Or maybe they just watched the scene online and could see with their own eyes no condoms were used. No moles necessary but it makes a good conspiracy story. And maybe they got the performers name right there with the video online and just looked at the agency sites online and found out who the agent was. Did I say ‘maybe.’
The porn industry has got to realize something. They are up against a foe who is better organized, better funded, and much smarter than they are. 3 strikes and you’re out.
Legal question: how does the agency KNOW that no condoms would be used?
Here your future porn industry those send othere out do questionable risks in porn indusrty are gone be held accountable for that action. The good old days of no one cared are over done. If you think FSC gone save you need stop living in state denial. The price for those thinking there gone circumvent condom law gone be high La would love catch some one breaking law so they can make example out them. When happens FSC first amendment right not gone save you when La takes court over matter.
The agents know if the scene is going to be bareback or condom only because they negotiate the rate. The agents KNOW the ins and outs (no pun intended) of what is expected of their talent BEFORE they even call the performer about the job at all. Does that answer your question, origen?
I think that the AHF might find itself losing on this one for a couple of basic reasons:
1) the condom requirement really hasn’t been tested legally yet, and is still not real certain,
2) they might be called to show statistics that the work place is more hazardous without the condoms, which may be statistically hard to prove in the porn world
3) They might have to explain why a condom would be a requirement, but not a dental dam or similar, and why many methods which can transfer an STD on set are not covered (oral sex, cumshots, and the like)
4) they would have to show that the agencies specifically knew that this was a no condom shoot, and that acts that would require a condom would occur on set – see above, they would have to be able to say which acts the law does and does not apply to.
Simply put, while this action isn’t specifically surprising, it’s also likely done at the wrong time by someone with a ax to grind against porn, or perhaps a wonderful Christian do-gooder trying to mess with the industry.
rawalex,
The condom issue HAS BEEN tested. OSHA has fined several companies over the past few years on this very issue, and they have all paid the fines. OSHA doesnt need to show statistics. Your point number 4 is laughable. OSHA regulations cover any EXPOSURE to OPIM, regarless if is it is a emergency person, like a paramedic, or a porn performer, the law makes no distinction between what job the person is doing when exposed to ‘potentially infectious material.” In the same manner that th law cannot be enforced based on the content of the mateial, neither can they be excluded from enforcement based on the content of the material.
They need not differentiate specific acts. If there is exchange of potetially infections bodily fluid, regardless of the act, intentional or accidental, the rule apply. Some have argued that mere skin to skin contact can transmit disease and therefor a whole hazmat suit is required. This only shows their total ignorance, or they are trying to mislead you. Skin to skin contact does NOT involve exposure to potentially infectious bodily fluid.
RW,
theagency law also says, ‘the nature of which the agent can ascertain with minimal effort.” The agent does not have the option of saying, “I didnt know they werent using condoms.” 1700.33
Do you really think it would stand up in court if an agent in the San Fernando Porn world were to say he/she didnt know that their performers were working without condoms, seeing the wording of section 1700.33. That agent would not only be guilty of perjury, but he would be found in violation of .33 It is the legal duty of the agent to know the nature of the job he is procurring for the talent.
The problem here is what is the unsafe working situation? Under your take, the presence of any bodily fluids in contact with any part of anyone else’s body would constitute an unsafe work environment, making it impossible to film porn – or for that matter, any hollywood movie in which two stars kiss (possibly transmission of herpes!). Since the concept of “Hollywood Herpes” is pretty well know, your assertion is that every workplace where any contact including kissing occurs is in fact a danger.
Mainstream bookers should be quaking in their boots.
1700.33 would essentially require the agents to review the scripts, and to understand each and every act that will or might occur, and to assure that proper preventative measures are in place for each one, such as protection during oral sex (including on women), as their is always the chance of issues. Let’s not forget lesbian pussy on pussy grinding, that would be a major no-no. It’s impossible for the agent to know, with absolutely certainty, that no acts will occur that are not some sort of risk.
Oh, and OSHA fining companies who in turn pay the fines in no way validates the condom issue, rather it shows that paying the fine is cheaper than fighting the case.
Holding the agents responsible in his case is silly, they have no more control over the work place than hollywood agents do over what might happen on a major film set.
The new condom law is irrelevant to the workplace safety thing going on now.
Cal-Osha’s position for several years has been that existing workplace regulations in California require the use of a condom for filming porn. They may not enforce it, but that is their position. What appears to be happening now is that an advocacy organization is pushing regulatory agencies to enforce the regulations on the books. They’re not creating new regulations.
The notion that agents would have to review a script, etc., is non-sense. I am not a porn performer or porn agent. So, my knowledge of industry practices is limited to what I read on AdultFIY, LIB and Mike’s site. But performers consistently talk about rates – they are paid one rate for girl-girl, another rate for a blow job, another rate for vaginal sex, another rate for anal, another rate for DP, and so on.
If you visit any of the agency websites, they do not cite the dramatic reading abilities of actresses. They give the dates they are available and the kinds of acts they are available to perform.
When negotiating a rate, an agent can ask a simple question: Is this a condom shoot or a condom-less shoot?
I don’t know if the porn world works like the publishing world for work-for-hire, but in publising, every assignment, no matter how lengthy or short, no matter whether its a big rate or small rate, includes a brief boiler plate contract that is co-signed by the publisher, the writer and, if the writer has an agent, the writer’s representative.
It is typically 2 pages long. With regard to the writer’s execution of the contract, It details the subject of the piece, the length of the piece, the deadline, the rate for the work, the kill fee if the publisher chooses not to publish it, the publisher’s rights with regard to publication and republication, and any aspects that are unique to that assignment. Mainstream television/film contracts are pretty similar. They’re not long. They’re not complicated. They are enforceable. It’s the way the industry works.
In that regard, an agent just needs a boiler plate contract that says: Actor or Actress X is contracting with Production Company Y to perform the following scene. The scene requires the following acts, for which the performer will be paid $X.
The contract can specify whether the performance is with or without a condom. If everyone says it is with a condom and the production company requires it to be without a condom, then someone has to answer for that.
Policing it is fairly easy. Presumably, every agent presumably talks to his or her client after the shoot. If the client says: You told me it was a condom shoot and they told me to do it without a condom, the agent is on notice next time that this producer isn’t straight up.
What’s more, every scene is published online. How hard is it for an agent to review his clients’ work once its published? The evidence of whether or not a condom was used is right there in the video.
The agent may have a duty to visit a set or two – or send someone to visit a set or two – to insure that the terms of the contract are being enforced. And, the agent may also have a duty to refuse to send clients on sets that the agent knows are condomless, or, are likely to be condomless based on the producer’s past actions. A phrase often used is: knew, or should have known. If an agent has dealt with a specific producer in the past, they know – or should know – that condoms are or aren’t likely to be on the set.
This isn’t rocket science or a burden. It’s business as usual for the rest of the publishing and entertainment industries.
“Is this a condom shoot or a condom-less shoot?”
If you think everyone in this industry would give a straight answer, then you have confirmed that you aren’t part of it.
Everyone would be on notice about 10 seconds after this starts, because this isn’t a straight and simple business. Porn scripts (if there is even one) are loose flexible, as are the scene requirements and the actions of the people involved. Things often change on the fly, depending on all sorts of things from the way the girl looks at a given moment to if the guy can get wood.
All that would happen is that every production would be contractually “condom”, there would be a big bag of rubbers on set, and nobody would use them. Knowing that, could an agent EVER book anyone into a scene?
It isn’t rocket science, it’s porn. That’s the problem.
rawalex, the rules of agency require due diligence in the representation of the principal. Agents must perform a strict level of scrutiny when negotiating contracts on behalf of performers. If they fail to operate on such a level, they could lose their license and be shit out of luck.
People are not stupid. If a studio keeps on releasing scenes without condoms (the visual evidence is there) there isn’t really any plausible way an agent could claim ignorance.
I agree entirely with Origen. The idea that a producer would continually and repeatedly lie about whether a shoot is with a condom or without, knowing that there are potential fines and repurcussions ranks up there with Rob Black flipping the bird at the US Department of Justice and daring them to prosecute him. I’m sure that porn scripts are flexible and a lot is left to chance, but condom or condomless has nothing to do with the acts being performed, the setting or the plot. Similarly, James Deen apparently declared in the Huffington Post that requiring condoms is a violation of his civil rights – it’s not, unless they require him to wear a condom in the privacy of his own home. The follow up is that it violates his ability to realize his artistic vision. The example was what if he wanted to film a scene in which the plotline involved a couple trying to get pregnant. And, I guess, my response would be: Has anyone ever envisioned a porn flick – even a couples flick – in which anyone tried to get pregnant? Filming that scene would mean there was no pop shot – or at least no external pop shot – since that would defeat the purpose of a scene that involved trying to get pregnant. It would be a cream pie, where the woman purposely pushes out the semen to prove that someone came in her because, well, that would defeat the purpose. So, you’re talking about a scene in which there is no evidence of a pop shot. My guess is that there’s a creative way to film that with a condom. Artists find a way.
BT and Origen01, well said.
rawalex, why do you seem to maintain that agents, granted a license by the state, after agreeing to the conditions of that license in their application, are some how immune from following those laws that they agreed to in order to be issued that license, or maintain that the laws they agreed to follow are too burdensome, and therefore dont apply to them.
rawalex, look at the link below. As they say at the poker table, “read ’em and weep.’ And it seems that alot of people who have been trying to find excuses for the industry are doing a little more weeping these days.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100227005848/http://www.ladirectmodels.com/talent.php?id=518&gender=
Rawalex, note the link from LAdirect. They list creampie as an act she will perform. Dont try to insinuate that the agency doesnt know exactly what acts are being performed.
And the bodily fluid contact is in relation to mucous membrane, which does not include outer layer skin. Wishful thinking is not an excuse for not following the law. Let the industry find a legislator just like AHF did to propose their own laws. Just because you dont like the law doesnt mean it doesnt apply to you.
jilted, so you think “swallowing” and “creampie” niches of porn should cease to exist?
Origen: re: swallowing and cream pie, it’s an interesting question. If you applied the same standards to exposure via sex as is applied in the health care industry, there’s probably a good chance cream pie’s would be eliminated, especially anal cream pies. If Cal-Osha has determined that you have to wear a condom for vaginal sex, by definition you’re not going to be allowed to remove it for an internal pop shot. That kind of defeats the purpose. Oral might be another story – at least when it comes to HIV. But not herpes, chlymida and other STDs. Probably not going to have squirting either, at least not squirting into someone’s mouth. Or ass-to-mouth.
ass-to-mouth would be eliminated…definitely.
I want performers to be the safe but these standards are excessively overbearing and imposing upon sexual preference….not to mention upon artistic values….
It may surprise you that I do not favor mandatory condoms, and I would not support any ban on any particular acts. What I want is for producers to pay the cost of the consequences for the acts that they hire people to perform.
The porn industry as a whole, or individual companies could apply for an OSHA variance, as Steve Hirsh did several years ago. But when Hirsh was told he would have to pay for post exposure testing and treatment he withdrew the application. So if you think the industry’s opposition to this is based on anything other than not paying for the consequences of their productions, you are severely mistaken. I hope the link I provide here works.
http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/variances/index.html
Let me say this again since someone OBVIOUSLY doesn’t understand that AGENTS KNOW WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THE PERFORMERS INCLUDING AND NOT LIMITED TO CONDOM OR NO CONDOM, PERIOD!!! The agent tells the performer what is expected of them, PERIOD!!! And it also seems we’re onto the conspiracy theories again and haz/mat suits and dental dams, etc… STOP the lies, you lying liars!!! Worker safety has been ignored for too long in the adult film industry and anyone who thinks talent want to keep catching STD’s are imbeciles!!!!! STFU!!!!! Puleeze!!!!
But AB332 would certainly ban particular acts. I think the Industry would gladly argue for the status quo (to prevent passage of AB332) but they lose credibility as their negligent attitude has always been impervious to OSHA fines…
http://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB332/2013
This is the entire text of ab332. The first couple of paragraphs are a general explination, follwed by the text of the law, as it is now written. As you can see, the vast majority of the text of this law is straight out of OSHA regulation 5193.
AB332 does not call for the banning of any particular acts, and IMHO, there is no text that could be interpeted as banning any acts. It also specifically calls for condoms only for acts of vaginal or anal intercourse.
I disagree. Section1, Subsection 4, Paragraph c states:
“An employer shall maintain engineering and work practice
controls sufficient to protect employees from exposure to blood and
any potentially infectious materials.”
The controls are not limited to the ones outlined in the bill. Also, you say the bill “calls for condoms only for acts of vaginal or anal intercourse” but that would unequivocally prohibit the “creampie” acts.
I see there are some things to work with in this bill, but do you see my concerns? Likewise do you see my earlier point in which the bill makes NO distinction between amateur and homemade pornographers and high-output commercial studios? (Section 1. Subsections 2 & 3)
Origen,
the creampie act is already a violation of OSHA 5193. As far as amatuer stuff goes, if there is no employee, employer relationship then none of this applies. If there is such a relationship then it does apply. Husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends, or girlfriends and girlfriends can post all they want if there is no employer, employee relationship.
Before you bring up webcamming, does that e/e relationship exist with anybody? But you bring up excellent points as usual.
Nick, I am all for worker safety. However, the safest thing for a worker is not to work at all, stay home wrapped in bubble wrap and don’t dare get in a car to drive to anything, that is risky! All work is inherently dangerous, from office work (paper shredders and staplers can get you, not to mention the boiling coffee) to driving a cab. There are certain sets of risks that come with any job, some you have to accept and some you do not.
The problem is that many acts in a porn movie are inherently risky. Kissing someone with oral herpes as an example, or going down on a girl with genital herpes could be just as bad as having unprotected sex with them. Quite simply, because porn (sex) is an interactive thing between two or more people, there is always inherent risks.
For all of the major outbreaks in the porn world, we have seen that they all seem to come from performers who do the unprotected nasty with people they pick up in bars, things like that, and then bringing it to the set. Condoms might help in that case, but again, so many acts that can transmit an STD in porn are not related to having a condom on.
True worker safety in porn exists only when you stop making porn. That is what the AHF is really trying to accomplish.
Actually, the amateur angle is a real issue. For workplace safety, they are trying to apply that independent contractors hired for a performance are still “employees”. Yet, a cam site acting as a disinterested third party only handling billing might not be a employer, but the same acts could occur. The amateur video angle hits the same problems.
But let’s go one step further. What about independent productions which are contracted out by a studio? A studio pays “production company B” to produce 10 scenes for them, and pays in bulk. Do they bear any employer responsibility here? Do they have to make sure they only purchase from OSHA compliant suppliers in Cali? What if they are paying for amateur sex tapes? What happens there? Who is the employer of these independent producers?
It’s very complex, and there are plenty of legal angles which could be used here.
Alex. Those are excellent points and it is complicated. In mainstream television and film, an indpendent contractor becomes a payroll employee during the course of the contract. At least that’s what happens to writers. After you sign a WGA approved contract, you are issued payroll checks with withholding and a W2, not a 1099. When you’re on the set, you’re covered by the same workplace rules as an electrician. In the case of a company that has a set workplace – say a corporation with an office complex – an independent contractor or vendor is covered by that company’s workers comp and unemployment insurance when they are on the grounds. If I contract with an electrician to do work in my office building and he is injured while on the job, I am potentially liable for his workers comp claim even though he is not my employee. Similarly, if the guy who does the work is a subcontractor to the electrical company that I contracted, I am potentially liable. I think that covers one of the potential scenarios you outlined. I’m a porn production company and distributor. I contract with an independent producer to create content exclusively for me; while executing my content, someone is injured on the set. Who is responsible. The production company/distributor would probably argue its not them, it’s the independent producer’s problem because it was his set. The injured party would certainly go after the independent producer first, but if the content was being created at the direction of the producer/distributor, my guess is that someone would go after them as well – whether they’re successful or not is probably not cut and dried.
“”Employee” means a person who is an employee, independent
contractor, or unpaid individual, regardless of whether the person is
shown in the adult film, who performs a penetrative sexual act or an
act for the sexual stimulation of the viewer that involves exposure
to bloodborne pathogens or other potentially infectious materials.”
ANYONE engaged in filming sex acts with the intent to eventually profit is deemed an adult film employer by this legislation. By extension, any participant in a commercial adult film is an employee. This stands despite the personal relationship status between “employer” and the participants (or else Alexis Texas and Mr Pete would be making films nonstop). It also stands even if the participants are not compensated with cash.
I think with regard to amateurs or camming, the distinction would be this – and I’m just guessing, not saying something definitive. The word amateur may have one meaning to the film industry and another as a matter of business. The industry considers someone an “amateur” when it’s some guy filming his wife, girlfriend or someone he picked up at the bus station who isn’t otherwise part of the adult scene. Or, it’s the housewife who makes videos or cams in her apartment for some extra cash. However, if that is selling the videos or camming for money, it’s a business. It may be a small business. I might not even be profitable. But it’s a business. So the question then would be, at what’s the threshold level before a business is required to have workers comp insurance? I don’t know the answer. If its a guy filming his wife or live-in girlfriend, they probably don’t have to have workers comp any more than I have to have workers comp for my home office, since I’m my sole employee. If the guy regularly brings in his wife’s best friend for the action, he is probably liable for her well-being – either via workers comp or personal liability – just as you, I or any private homeowner can be sued by a roofer or painter who falls off a ladder while working on our home if they don’t have workers comp or liability insurance. I’m not sure why an amateur porn business would be any different from hiring an uninsured roofer. They may call it amateur, but if they’re charging for the service, it’s a business.
There are criteria that make the distinctions between IR vs employee. Not all of the cirteria need apply to deem someone an employee. A person may deemed and IR for purposes of payroll, and an employee for purposes of health and safety in the work place. One of the criteria to determine the EMPLOYER in the case of multiple levels of contractors is ‘who writes the check to whom” The producer may be an independent contracor for the big studio, and the employer of the talent. In the case of a talent who is booked through a legal agent, the employer of the talent is named in the contract, as is required by DIR.
That may be so, BT, but this gets into a very important discussion regarding free speech and privacy. The Freeman Decision has affirmed the First Amendment right of Californians to distribute sexually explicit (non-obscene) material for profit. Therefore, what business does the government have in regulating sex acts between consenting individuals. It has none–even if footage of the sex act is distributed for profit after the fact. The profit factor cannot be the SOLE element that constitutes employment. That is simply a severe affront to the Right to Privacy afforded by the Fourth Amendment.
I’m not looking for a court challenge here. I’m just saying the bill is wrong and should be amended–and certainly not passed as-is.
Thanks for the clarification, jilted. But what about instances where there is there is no performer contract? 2257 applies to everyone distributing and sets up clear definitions of what constitutes a producer (2257 does not regulate SEX ACTS so it’s okay with me). But 2257 makes no inference as to who is the actual employer….
Origen: I’m not sure why porn should be treated any differently than mainstream? Privacy has to do with the right to privacy in your own home. There is no right to privacy in the workplace – it’s the reason that an employer is allowed to read your emails and monitor what you do on the web during company time with company assets. Similarly, a mainstream actor or actress simulating sex in a mainstream feature would be covered by OSHA rules. It doesn’t make sense to say that pornography should be afforded a different standard because the sex is real versus simulated.
I strongly disagree and let’s forget the issue of my argument. Consensual sex where no participant is paid should not constitute a workplace environment under any circumstances–even if there are profits EVENTUAL accrued from commercial distribution.
rawalex? I was ASTONISHED by the adult film companies response to the condom issue! Imagine if you will… When I started in porn back in 1990, things were different. There were story lines in porn, no internet, no playboy tv even! Now you have extremes that were never even considered due to legal issues back then! Creampies and other gross shit that does unfortunately appeal to SOME perverts out there so they produce it and IT SELLS!!! Grosser still is that there is an actual audience for porn where they get to think that the girl is getting a skanky STD or even worse!!! They get off on it! It’s what she deserves! Gross gross gross! Those pics of mr. marcus with his syphillis infected penis in a girls mouth GETS SOME PEOPLE OFF! How much worse does it have to get before someone does something about it?
And yes, I personally feel that the people railing against condoms in porn are as skanky as can be and I hope they rot in Hell! There, I’ve said it! Steve Hirsch can ef off for putting profit ahead of worker safety! And I challenge James Deen to a lie detector test about his lie about never getting an STD since he got into porn! IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
Hey rawalex,,, imagine if you got a job and AFTER THE FACT all safety measures were sent askew.
Now on to the conspiracy theories you pro STD guys love to espouse.
Really? The AHF is trying to end porn all together!!!! Oh!!!! And I bet that 9/11 was an inside job too, right? Why did you stop with the haz/mat suit ridiculousness? Dental dams? Come on, guys, if you’re going to scare us with bullshit don’t stop shy of armegeddon!
Porn is out of control and you guys are part of the problem!
Stop it!
Untreatable Gonnorhea IS on it’s way, and when it hits the industry there are going to be alot of VERY unhappy performers, and the company owners WON’T GIVE A SHIT!
Oh my efing God!!! Really, origen01? Overbearing and imposing!!! All because you like to see ass-to-mouth!!! How sick are you? Wow!
Let’s just make sure we have the right distinctions. You mentioned free speach and the right to privacy. There is no right to privacy if you are camming – streaming the event as it happens – unless you are streaming one on one. I have a camera on my computer. You have a camera on your computer. I’m your friend. You’re my friend. We want to share this intimate moment. It’s a private exchange in the privacy of my own home. Let’s say in that same setting, I invite a friend to join in so you can share that experience as well, but it’s still three friends. There would be no OSHA requirement for me to have a condom. However, if that third person is in my home, he or she could still potentially sue me if he or she is injured. I could still face personal liability, especially if, ala Mr. Marcus, I knew I had an STD and deliberately passed it on. HIV patients, for instance, have been prosecuted for having unprotected sex with the intent of infecting someone.
If you are camming on a public website, one where any Tom, Dick or Harry can view by joining the website, you have given up the right to privacy. If I decide to film my encounter with our friend and publicly distribute the video, I have given up the right to privacy. For instance, if the encounter involves that third person, I cannot distribute it without a signed release. It’s now a commercial venture even if I don’t make money on it, even if I lose money on it – commercial businesses lose money all the time. They still have to abide by OSHA regulations to provide a safe work environment in a money-losing venture. For instance, a soup kitchen that gives food away – there is no profit – still has to have a safe working environment for its volunteers, who are making no money. The soup kitchen still has to meet public health standards. The food must be fit to eat.
The other analogy might be that there is a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. That doesn’t mean that a gun range gets a pass on making certain that people handle fire arms in a safe manner while they’re shooting. If someone is injured a gun range because the guns weren’t properly maintained or stored or there weren’t sufficient safeguards, the gun owner couldn’t say that he wasn’t liable for the injury because the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.
Every right comes with responsibility.
Interesting explanation, BT, but I wasn’t really thinking about camming. I was thinking about a private sexual encounter, which just happened to be video taped, and footage was commercially distributed after the fact…
For a private sexual encounter to be commercially distributed after the fact, you’ll still have to have signed releases and the paperwork that goes along with any other adult production. Otherwise, one party could sue the other party – and potentially anyone who distributes the release – for a violation of privacy. You may get away with not having condoms in that kind of setting – once. But if a production company repeatedly put out tapes that involved private sexual encounters that were later released commercially, they’re now in the business.
There must exist an employee/employer relationship at the time the action takes place for OSHA to have any jurisdiction. Creating a commercial product after the fact, such a a boyfriend putting a tape on the internet, does not create an e/e relatinship. Employees get paid.
I don’t like that shit (no pun intended) but some people like to do it on film…
But the bill says that even unpaid relationships could constitute an employer/employee relationship. What is up with that?