Contract Girls

[one eyed jack]

Hi Paul

No you are not even involved if a contract girl leaves them its none of your business. I would advise any model that has left a contract to read it herself because as a thrid party you have nothing to do with it.

In fact even if she did under contract then it still is not your concern. So I wouldnt worry about that. None of those girls has come looking my way for work and if they did I wouldnt turn them down because i dont like bullyboy tactics.

I certainly wouldnt expect another company to do it out of the kindness of their own hearts for me. We all ave businesses to run and people should just take care of their own.

Its not like all their girls havent done shedloads that are listed here on this very forum before they started is it?

If what Hiwatt means in his legal speak is "touch my girls before their year is up and I'll smash ya face in" then thats another matter entirely.

Otherwise I'm not sure how he will ask you to remove content and/ or refund the money direct to them. That just sounds outrageous. if anything then it sounds like a veiled threat put in polite terms.

Gulp!

Is that the case Hiwatt? Or can we expect you will haul various members of the producing community into court rooms?

But yes Paul, I have never heard anything as crazy like this except in the US where people have sued the model directly. Never another producer for shooting a girl out of contract.

[one eyed jack]

To further add, you normally find there is resistance to hiring models who have come out of contracts anyway for the simple fact there are plenty more new girls that taken up their time and efforts and that girls under contract have probably done so much in contract that its not financially worthwhile shooting them anyway.

Some girls are an exception to this rule though.

[marcusallen]

Of course, there is also the strong possibility that Bluebird have no particular interest in the business as a whole. Its a good way to get laid regularly and also
maybe its just a rich man's plaything possibly involving a tax loss situation etc.

[Paul Taylor]

Hi Terry,
thanks for the reply bud. Sorted out what I was hoping too. Yes like you say plenty more models out there, and like I said in my area too, for exclusive scenes.

But yes, I often wondered that if a mode approached me for work and I thought they would be good for the site, would I be able to say no if I knew they were contracted as if unless we are both wrong then its the models problem not ours.

But yes my certain way of thinking about the big boys stealing the talent are long gone, lifes too short to worry about such things as like you say its a big industry and enough room for us all.

Paul

[harmonyluvver]

need an edit function.


I just wanted to say I don't have anything against Bluebird. In fact if a company could use an American approach to the business and give the girls more consistent work and high production values, obviously that can only be a good thing. It's the way that certain representatives of Bluebird come over on this forum.

I think there is much good that could be done with Bluebird both to improve the lives of the performers and the strength of Brit Porn, and if you wanted to discuss any ideas with a lowly forumite then feel free to email and have a chat.

If girls signed contracts without reading them, only because the pound signs in their eyes were distracting them, then it could be argued the girls have gotten what they deserve. I think there are certainly better ways to deal with it however and again...email....chat...if you want.

[one eyed jack]

Paul, you shouldnt even view it as stealing the talent anyway. The models decide to go under contract because this business is all baout the money.

Its there. They take it.

Such is the way of things.

Even if you get a girl first and she ends up with the competition that is not a bad thing. Just move onto the next girl.

How many times do you really want to shoot the same girl doing the same thing anyway?

[Paul Taylor]

yeah good point terry, like I say I do think differenly now and have learnt that myself.

Move on and the more girls the better, thats what I say.

Paul

[TheDonkeyWork]

... I've got some concerns about the validity of this!

Primarily my concern is this - I think you're talking bollocks! I'm no expert in law but I'm afraid your contract is with THE GIRL - not A N OTHER who subsequently shoots said girl in whatever project they do.

The doctrine of PRIVITY will surely apply? Thus, you cannot bring an action in contract against any party who is NOT party to said contract!

If you want to bring an action against anyone then I would assume your only action can be against the GIRL for breahc of her contract with you. Any producer who shoots the girl has clearly not breached the contract because they were not party to that contract and thus cannot possibly be in breahc of a non-existent contract!

Or am I missing something here?

[paul jones]

Privity ? Are you a lawyer sir, or do you associate with such?

It would be good for some suitably qualified to comment.

Also on the (I think less controversial) restraint of trade clause.

[JB]

Paul Taylor wrote:

> that the producer is braking the contract too
> even though the girl is the one contracted.

Paul, whatever anyone says, you can't be in breach of a contract that you didn't sign! !happy!