Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Legal Issues Regarding Safety of Performers in the Adult Film Industry
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Legal Issues Regarding Safety of Performers in the Adult Film Industry

72
views

Published on

Maria de Cesare …

Maria de Cesare
Presented at AFI Think Tank
October 27, 2006

Published in: Business, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
72
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. AFI Think Tank Legal Issues Regarding Safety of Performers in the Adult Film Industry by Maria de Cesare October 27, 2006 UCLA Think Tank
  • 2. AFI Think Tank “...During production of the 1997 movie ‘Mimic,’ American Humane Association Representatives wandered through the Los Angeles set, ensuring that a herd of cockroaches was well taken care of. Licensed animal handlers were to follow state and federal anti- cruelty laws designed to protect the insects, which had been trained to swirl around actress Mira Sorvino's feet. The roaches had to be fed at a certain time. They could only work a few hours each day. They could not be harmed. At the same time, in studios in the San Fernando Valley, scores of other actors and actresses were working on movies. They put in long hours, commonly without meal breaks. They often worked without clean toilets, toilet paper, soap or water. More importantly, they were exposed to a host of infectious, and sometimes fatal, diseases.” * Source: P.J. Huffstutter, See No Evil, L.A. Times, Jan. 12, 2003, I (Magazine).
  • 3. AFI Think Tank Two issues:  Protections for mainstream actors vs. AFI actors  Employee vs. Independent Contractor status
  • 4. AFI Think Tank Mainstream vs. Adult Film Industry Protections for Actors:
  • 5. AFI Think Tank In the “Mainstream”:
  • 6. AFI Think Tank Employee vs. Independent Contractor Employment Status:
  • 7. AFI Think Tank • General Code of Safe Practices for Production • Recommendations for Safety with Firearms and Use of Blank Ammunition • Stunts • Animal Handling Rule • SCUBA Equipment Recommendations • Guidelines for Traditional Camera Cars • Power Line Distance Requirements • Safety Guidelines for Multiple Dressing Room Units • Guidelines for Use of Artificially Created Smoke, Fogs, and Lighting Effects • Guidelines for Use of Fixed-Wing Aircraft in Motion Picture Production • Gasoline Operated Equipment • Water Hazards • Guidelines for Safe Use of Airbags • Guidelines for Use of Motor Cycles • Guidelines for Use of Exotic Venomous Reptiles • Guidelines for Use of Elevating Work Platforms • Poisonous Plants • Guidelines for Safety Around Hot Air Balloons • Safety with Edged and Piercing Props • Safety Awareness When Working Around Indigenous “Critters” • Food Handling Guidelines • Working in Extreme Hot/Cold Temperatures • Guidelines for Inclement or Severe Weather • Guidelines for Handling Freshly Painted Backdrops and Other Graphic Arts • Safety Awareness for Photographic Dust Effects • Preparing Urban Exterior Locations • Guidelines for the Use of Open Flames of Motion Picture Sets • Guidelines for Appropriate Clothing and Personal Protective Equipment • Parachuting and Skydiving * Source: Safety Bulletins Recommended by the Industry-Wide Labor-Management Safety Committee, Contract Services Administrative Trust Fund, https://csatf.org/bulletintro.shtml
  • 8. AFI Think Tank “Economic Realities” Test Is the alleged employee economically dependent on the alleged employer? * Source: Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 726-27 (1947). See also S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989). Does the alleged employer control, or have the right to control, the manner and means in which work is performed?
  • 9. AFI Think Tank “Economic Realities” Test 1. Does the principal retain pervasive control over the operation as a whole? 2. Are the worker’s duties an integral part of the operation? 3. Does the nature of the work make detailed control unnecessary? * Source: Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 726-27 (1947). See also S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989). …part II
  • 10. AFI Think Tank “Economic Realities” Test 1. Does the principal retain pervasive control over the operation as a whole? 2. Are the worker’s duties an integral part of the operation? 3. Does the nature of the work make detailed control unnecessary? * Source: Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 726-27 (1947). See also S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989). …part II