Not to mention the producers don’t have to reach in their pockets. The talent does all the reaching.

I wrote this earlier and didn’t post it but kept the file open. Given Mike’s comments, some of it seems relevant enough to post.

Good questions, Danny, and I hope you don’t feel like I have a harsh tone or am attacking you.

The text that I read state that the license is two hundred dollars, valid for two years, needs to be applied for within ten days after producing the first scene with penetration of a vagina or anus by a penis, and is automatically granted upon application.

Regarding testing, you are missing the point. Barrier protection (condoms) is the law. Testing is not. Prop 60 says that a producer must pay the cost of testing if it is required by the producer. You may be concerned that the end result will be porn with condoms but no testing. It’s a valid concern, but it’s not the law.

You might want to ask yourself why that lady you’ve booked is all of a sudden trying to book with every other content producer while she has a valid test. Let’s say she gets $800 per scene and the test costs $200. If the producer has to pay for any testing required by the producer, the performer is walking away with a a pay per scene of $800.

Now, let’s think about the current situation in which the performer has to pay the $200 testing cost. If she shoots one scene, her pay per scene is actually $600 after testing costs. If she shoots two scenes, her pay per scene is actually $700 after testing costs. The test is a fixed cost. Shooting more scenes with that one cost lets you average it out over more scenes. The result is that your rate has effectively increased for you (the money in your pocek) without costing the producers any money.

Where do these incentives lead? Very high rates of potential exposure in very short periods of time. Those incentives take the situation from a minor outbreak to a potential epidemic in the industry.

Danny I respectfully disagree, If I can do it…porners can do it and as far as spreading the cost that is very easy to work out on a number of levels for one a pool can be set up and producers add x amount of dollars to the pool everytime they shoot and testing comes from that pool. It also incentivizes producers NOT to shoot girls that maybe shouldn’t be in porn, we have far too many girls in the biz who have no business being in the biz, the result is that they make all of us look bad. Because of my situation I try very hard to make sure that the girl isnt doing it out of desperation and will regret it, it benefits me to do so, there are no such precautions taken in Cali, if she is 18 she could have track marks everywhere, a rig hanging out of her arm completely incoherent and cutting herself in the makeup chair and people will still shoot her…which has led to many of the problems we have.

That part is pertaining to the additional regulations the bill adds being the ones that cause shooting to move out of California.

Does payment or receipt of affilliate income confuse you? From an accounting standpoint ‘shared stakeholder test’ financing works the same way.

Tests, licenses, permits, set location, crew and performer labor costs are all COGS …cost of goods sold expenses directly related to financing a production.

@Hercules

As an undeumecated homemaker it thrills me to amuse and annoy lawyers… as always I advocate seeking a qualified lawyer for any legal advise.

The Cal. LAO did a porn friendly analysis that wasn’t challenged. There’s was nothing to substantiate the projections nor indicators that porn tax revenue as a whole isn’t included with production revenue.

If they are going by secretary of state franchise board records then its pretty much guaranteed they didn’t consider unpaid taxes by production workers paid as IC.

Also if you require Directors to get licensing & permits that will lower the talent’s pay or get her less work.

LR posted as I was writing this and makes some similar comments.

I can’t speak to the legal aspect, but I can explain the general logic behind state residents being able to sue in civil court.

First, I should say that it would be very helpful to have a link or PDF of the full text for Prop 60 and not just the short description on the ballot. I could only find copies on AHF’s website and from a CA gov site which was just the letter and text sent to them from Weinstein.

Condoms are already mandated by law in California. The issue is that the law is not being followed or enforced. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) openly acknowledges this non-compliance and non-enforcement. Source: http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/state_admin/2016/Adult-Films-Initiative-Statute-060816.pdf

The part of the LAO analysis that I find very strange is that they speak about potential lost revenue for the state due to Prop 60 because of potential non-compliance, porn producers leaving the state, porn going underground, etc. Basically, it means that the State of California has an incentive to not enforce existing law.

It would be one thing if the argument was about repealing existing law or amending OSHA regulations, or at least interpretations of those regulations. However, that is not the argument here. The argument here, instead, is that the State of California shouldn’t bother enforcing existing laws and regulations because it’s expensive.

Now, we come to the reason for state residents to be able to sue in civil court. The text of the full proposal that I’ve read – which may not be the official wording – only allows individuals to file a civil complaint AFTER they have informed Cal-OSHA and Cal-OSHA has not replied or investigated within a certain amount of time.

Essentially, it’s a back-up mechanism to enforce state law when the state itself refuses to enforce the law.Private residents can’t sue immediately. They have to contact the state first and give the state ample time to investigate the complaint.

If the state would simply enforce existing laws and regulations, there would be no need for (that portion of) Prop 60.

Read the full text of the proposal. IF…. that’s right IF OSHA doesn’t investigate a claim the complainant can file a civil suit to win 25% of what the OSHA penalties would have been IF the court finds violations occurred.

This puts a fire under Cal/OSHA ass…they have to give priority to verifying and responding to the complaints. If enough complaints wind up in court it helps substantiate a complaint against the state plan (Cal/OSHA) with Federal OSHA. The fed treasury pays the state half the administrative costs and lets the state keep all revenues for their general funds so any fines or reduction in funding threats is a big stick.

Not sure if it applies but consider citizen arrests pursued in a lawful manner.

For food industries where whistleblower retaliation was a given health dept and OSHA were forced to respond to certain critical complaints within x hours…. regardless of who makes the complaint. If the condition exists when they get there the establishment can be shut down until the issue is corrected. If they let it slide they cam be named as defendants in lawsuits.