egafd.com

That is correct. You cannot be in contractual breach of a contract you did not sign.

But the law says that if you [a] persuade/procure/assist somebody else to breach their contract then you are liable for damages in 'tort'.

And, if you agree to do that, then so agreeing constitutes unlawful interference in a business, which is also a tort. It can also make you liable for damages for conspiracy to injure.

Producers are being given information. Their emotional reactions to it are a matter for them. It does not change the law or the facts. If you have difficulty believing that the law is what it is, look it up on wikipedia.

But you will understand that just 'thinking' that a proposition of law doesn't sound right is not really a substitute for legal analysis on the basis of actual knowledge of the law.

The law is the same in the US [English common law]. And there have been 2 cases I know of where producers have been sued for using a contract girl or her image in breach of her contract with her company.

Hope this all helps your understanding of the issues.

Yes, you are missing something.

If a producer procures/assists/encourages a contract [or former] contract girl to breach HER non-shoot clause, then that is a separate civil wrong called 'procuring a breach of contract'. It is a 'tort'. It can also constitute interference in a business [the other producer's], which is also a tort. The agreement made between that producer and the girl can also constitute a conspiracy to injure the other producer. Again a tort.

Where the contract girl's producer has taken an assignment of the right to use the girl's name and image, then infringing that right is a statutory breach of copyright.

That's how the law works.

No, the clause is not liable to being vitiated on the grounds of restraint of trade, because BB contract girls have rights to post-contract royalties. Unlike say a footballer or I.T worker.

Such non-shoot clauses are actually standard in quite a lot of BBC contracts [for example] too.

Isn't this wonderfully educational ?

You got enough already !happy!

Well, commit tortious procurement of a breach of contract and you'll get one !

Or just ask permission from the producer instead.

Don't feed the troll. Please don't feed the troll. May be clever and have more mony to spunk than me but don't feed the troll.

All I see is a lot of great guys and girls in the industry and this troll actually shows what great guys you all are.

I consider it an honour talkimg to any and all of you,

Love,

Matt.

The proposition that one can only obtain damages for financial loss where there is also physical damage was overturned by the Courts 50 years ago.

Procuring/encouraging/assisting a person to breach a contract with someone else is what's known as an 'economic' tort. There is no need to prove physical damage. Same with interference with a business and conspiracy to injure.

As to the amount of damages: suppose Vivid has spent $100,000 paying for and promoting Jenna Jameson as an exclusive contract girl. You go shoot her, knowlingly assisting her to breach her Vivid contract. What do you think the damages should be ?

Or, you use the name 'Jenna Jameson' in promoting your site or DVD. What do you think will happen ?

Glad you took the mind of some legal experts in the laws of film and media production. Oh no, sorry, biscuits.

Did you ask them about the torts of procuring breach of contract, interference with trade, conspiracy to injure.

Oh and did you tell them that the name and image of the biscuit in question belongs to the production company not the model [because she has assigned it].

Guess not.