egafd.com

All producers know who past and present BB contract girls are: they are up there on the site for all to see: www.bluebirdfilms.com

Be aware that under their contracts, they are not allowed to shoot for anyone else for 1 year after their contract ends, without our prior permission. You can understand that when we have paid for boobjobs etc etc, we need to protect the rights in their name and image.

Alexis Silver and Alicia Rhodes, being already well established stars who have shot loads for others before BB were not subject to this contractual condition. All others are.

If any producer uses a former BB girl in breach of this condition, then such producer is liable in law to us. If any producer is not sure whether a former BB girl he wants to use is contractually 'ringfenced' then just email us and we'll tell you.

We have given permissions to various different producers for various projects involving our past and present CG's. We have also enforced by legal action 1 particular breach of our CG contract. The girl loses her shoot fee, and the producer has to either hand over to us, or destroy the content.

Whilst this is novel in the UK, it is established practice in the US.

By taking this stance, we are protecting our investment and also protecting the careers of future contract girls, whether with us or other producers.

Really? US and Uk law have so many differences....


1) Are you sure the 1 year restraint of trade clause would stand up. Normally it would, but a girl could argue that while 1 year out of a typical 20-40 year career is Ok, it's not when taken from a 3-4 year porn one.

Also restraints normally have to be quite limited in scope - a blanket one is asking to be challenged. You can't generally prevent people pursuing their trade, but only place temporary limits. E.g. a lingerie brand could ban a contracted face of the brand model from lingerie modelling for direct market segment competitors, but she could still do all other types of fashion work.

I'm sure you have taken legal advice, but so will anyone who challenges this.

2) Uk law isn't very friendly to attempts to bind third parties.

If a girl works for someone else you can sue the girl for breach of contract, and damages etc (and that might well be more than she gets paid for the shoot since you could argue that she has diluted your material value as well), but to get your hands on the producers stuff is another matter.

My take - any girl who has signed such a contract would be crazy to try and break it without taking legal advice, but a producer willing to fight might have some fun, (though it's a strange kind of person who find legal battles fun).

3) Enforcing a legal action doesn't mean that you won a court case whose decision you were able to enforce. Did a court make the settlement above, or did you simply suggest those terms "or we'll see you in court", and this settle out of court, setting no precedent.

I am not a lawyer but if I were an ex CG I'd def want to talk to a good lawyer. If I was a producer I'd opt for a quite life and keep away from ex CG girls unless I had a very good reason to use them.

Cheers

I've kept out of the whole BB posts, fair play to you if your building a porn empire, and I'm jealous if the truth be known, I would kill for your budgets!

But this threat is treading on my toes now........

I wouldn't have a clue if any of the girls I shoot have ever shot for BB let alone under contract and I will be buggered if I am to check your website or contact you for every model that applies 'just in case' don't you find this ridiculous?

Either publish a list of contract girls with expiry dates to producers or find another way, a broad 'muscle flexing' threat is only going to get our backs up.

Typically such contracts will only be enforced by law, if its been done to protect legitimate business interests and that it extends no further than necessary to achieve this. Im not sure how stopping a model shooting content or working for a year in any way protects bluebirds business interests, but then what do i know.

Also of note is that a high percentage of such cases normally go in favour of the employee if the non compete period is over 6 months, but of course it goes without saying anybody looking to shoot such models should get proper legal advice first.

Thanks for your responses.

The restraint clause is legally enforceable. We have already enforced it.

Breach of the contractual provisions renders the producer liable in damages and/or destruction or handing over of the content shot.

CG's are not employees. They are self employed. Restraint of b/g work for 1 year after a contract ends is precisiely analogous to the poster's 'Fashion Model' example. Indeed, it goes further, as the former CG's have a royalty interest, so working for other producers diminishes the value of their own interest.

Former CG's can do glamour [like Simon D's stuff] without permission. It is only b/g that is restricted.

The list of CG's is on our website - takes 1 minute to look it up. If a producer really can't be bothered to do that, here's the list [from the website]:

ALEXIS MAY
Putting the Sexy into Scottish!

ALEXIS SILVER
Coffee, Cream and in between!

ALICIA RHODES
I always want more: but I'm not telling you what!

AMY AZURRA
I'm Canadian: come taste my yummy maple syrup!

BROOKE JAMESON
I like it Smooth!

CINDY BEHR
Come share my Bubbles!

DELTA WHITE
I paint my dreams on every part of my body.

JAMIE BROOKS
I can't share my dreams: they're too rude!

JODIE JAMES
Brunettes have more fun: and it lasts longer!

KAIA KANE
I don't make love. I create it!

KARLIE SIMON
Hot Lollipop: sweet outside, tongue tingling inside!

KIT & KAT LEE
The best things come in Pairs: we do!

MICHELLE THORNE
I wanna be loved by You!

PIPPA DEE
I didn't get what I wanted for my 18th: now it's your turn!

ROMANA RYDER
Only 18 years old: so many hearts left to break!

STACEY SARAN
Do you know what Welsh girls want most?

I would love to meet the guy in charge of Bluebirds' public relations!!

It seems to me you would have been better served putting the money you spent on boob jobs into your web site development- you might have ended up with a site that actually worked then.

we have - try reading BeeWilson's posts.
Oh - and congrats on a BGAFD record: 5 posts before the thread goes off-topic. !shocked!

The restriction is BG only, so if GG is OK the model can continue most of her professional, and so be held to the limited restraint.

I would certainly say that is a much more enforceable set up as far as the restraint clause goes. Maybe next time you post this message (other forums?) you might raise fewer hackles by making that clear

I still very much doubt that you can take any action against a producer though - they have no duty of care to you, and no contractual relationship with you. But since you only worry about BG you're much easier to avoid anyway.

Talk of having enforced terms is just lawyerish hot air - the only enforcement statement that matters in law is "a court found in our favour". All pre court settlements are just business negotiations around matters of legal opinion.

i can understand why you would want to but I don't see under British law how a contract can be enforceable against a third party, who is nothing to do with it. All you can do is sue the girl for breach of contract.

You maybe have some claim to "intellectual property rights" infringement if the girl was part of the creative production, which is not common and very arguable. Other than that what on grounds could you hope to seize the third parties property ?