GirlsDoPorn: Young women win legal battle over video con

A US judge has awarded $12.8m (£9.8m) to 22 unnamed women, ruling that they were tricked into appearing in widely distributed online porn videos.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50982051

A salutary warning to anyone thinking of "tricking" women into doing WAM scenes, which has come up in discussion from time to time in various forums.

But all the videos are still up on our "favorite free hub site". Guess the ruling doesn't include punishment for anyone redistributing the videos.

The judgement says the operators have to do all possible to remove the videos from other sites, though I've no idea how enforced that may be. But TBH that's not the main point, the post is more intended as a warning to people who think "tricking" women into taking part in WAM videos without realising they're doing fetish erotica is a good idea. Some years back on another forum someone even suggested that setting up "fake charity events" just to get women to agree to be gunged or soaked, would be fun. He was fairly rapidly shut down by everyone else but I still think it's a point worth making that such antics could ultimately bankrupt the perpetrator.

I wonder how this is different from the Gone wild exploitation videos.

If this is the same court ruling I'm thinking of here is my stance. Sleazy, predatory, abusive, actions deserves to be punished abruptly, fully and with out a minuscule amount of remorse... however (I'm skeptical by nature) who here is really surprised that this happened? And who in their right mind would think that getting paid to fuck on video would stay in a private collection? It's a damn shame...

I know I'm walking against the wind, but in this day in age, if you do something on video you should know it MIIIIIGHT be going up on a website. So it's your decision to roll the dice. I feel that person accountability is lost.

Alright I smoked my last cig, tighten the blind fold and tell the firing line I'm ready.

While it might be very blunt, you are walking the path of logic here. Nothing to be afraid of. If you dont have full sole control of it in a secure way then chances are it will eventually end up on the internet.

It's a few long known lessons in one: If it looks or sounds shady, it most likely is. Especially if it requires long distance travel.
Also, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
and Always Do Your Research thoroughly.

================================

The judgement itself should serve as a very clear precedent.

I think the main issue here is less whether it's reasonable to think that someone can star in a porn movie and it not end up on the web, and more that it was fundamentally wrong of the people now convicted to lie about the intended audience of what they were shooting. Basically, breach of contract.

Just spent a few days in legal seminars at InterNext here in Vegas. The main issue in this case was no so much lying about where the video would be distributed, but lying about the nature of the shoot in the first place. "softcore" shoots suddenly turned into anal scenes and there were invariably security personnel blocking the doors so the girls felt like they had no means of extricating themselves from the situation.

The case is about consent and intimidation more than anything else.

WOW! That's news to me! How is this NOT a rape case then? er... SEVERAL rape cases I mean.

It will be when they manage to find and extradite the shitbags.

Wow, I sure hope they throw the books at 'em for rape and any other charges that apply. Also hoping the perps actually have the $9.8 million so the victims can be paid. I've read similar accounts of abuses within the adult film world, such as actors and actresses arriving for a filming only to discover their partner/co-star is not the person they expected or that they're expected to film with multiple partners when they'd never agreed to that, and this is after they've traveled far to get there and are already out the gas money.

My heart goes out to the women in this story, as the victims are young and have now been "outed" as adult performers to their families and this will affect their entire career paths. And this especially resonates with me because while I don't have any R-rated content out there, I know what it's like to sweat out job interviews knowing prospective employers WILL search your name online, guaranteed. "Mistakes were made" in my past and ngl, I have a record consisting of crimes of stupidity.

Agreeing hard with DungeonMasterOne here, tricking anyone into creating fetish content is dead wrong, and it's even worse if the unwitting models think they're helping a charity by agreeing to get soaked or gunged, only to provide free content to a greedy producer and nothing to charity. On the flipside, women and men do slightly risque things all the time in the name of charity (think "men/women of..." calendars with scantily-clad photo shoots) and if the producer was honest about the nature of the material, i.e. that it catered to a fetish, and actually contributed proceeds to said charity, fair enough.

Well, this was certainly not expressed in the articles that I read. This puts a significantly different spin on it.