Can You Revoke a Model Release for Pornographic Images

My question involves business law in the state of: Arizona

Good day all. I have a rather unique question for us to ponder that has come to my interest via a friend of a friend of a friend. Although this subject is somewhat off beat, please lets try to focus on the legal aspects and go easy on the nature of topic. The situation I am tasked to research *theoretically* involves a female that is a resident of Arizona and around years 2004-2005 became a " model/talent " for a fairly new pornographic film directing LLC at that time. Said female remained in this " industry " until somewhere around about 2010-2011 to remain vague. At the time of the initial procurement of her services the director had her read and sign a model release, which of course gave the director use of her image with an infinite time span, and a contract stating the use of her performances to be compensated to her in the form of a monthly payment chronological with a set number of filmed performances per month. The performances depicted multiple male talent performing acts with her at the same time, female on female acts, sodomy, and interracial scenes with the female degrading the male talent with racial slurs. ( Please note there is a reason for the graphic description ). As usual the years pass and the female leaves the industry, and chooses a completely different lifestyle. Her past endeavor of course becomes a burden and she finds herself constantly reminded in her search for progression in her new job field, as there is still an active website with her performances as a model/talent.

We are probably all thinking well that's what she gets, or she should have thought about that, but lets delve into some legal possibilities of having the website removed by the director in a legal fashion. The one theory that comes to mind is that Arizona is a staunch anti-prostitution state as stated by the Maricopa County Attorney in 2013. He classifies pornography as prostitution more or less as noted in the press release I'll include below. If this is the case in Arizona would the contract and release possibly have grounds to be nullified based on the Legal Object disqualification? The state sees " hardcore " pornography as obscene and out of the realm of " artistic expression ", this is the reason for the graphic description in the above paragraph. In other words if the State of Arizona sees these acts as illegal that would in turn make the contract and release a non legal agreement rendering the both null and void. That is one theory, the other thought would be if the female complained to the production company that she was not of sound mind when she signed the release and contract and the result of her actions are causing her unrelenting depression and inability to live a productive life, and to please cease and desist using her image. I doubt this would go very far, but I wanted to put it up for discussion, as to the best legal route for her to pursue in order to have her image removed from the website, all the while NOT implicating herself in any criminal offenses if that were even an issue to begin with.

Thank you for all input on this subject. I understand this is of a different nature, but it does pose some legal issues worth addressing.

Press Release from Maricopa County, AZ Atty:

http://blog.azpolicy.org/marriage-fa...al-in-arizona/

Sexual performances are prostitution under the Arizona code: "Prostitution" means engaging in or agreeing or offering to engage in sexual conduct under a fee arrangement with any person for money or any other valuable consideration.

If we're talking about something that happened in 2005, the statute of limitations has long expired on these acts.

So what we're down to is a contractual issue. Just being depressed doesn't make you incompetent to execute contracts. It requires such a serious mental incapacity to not understand the terms of what you are agreeing to. Your best step would be to indeed argue that a contract to perform a crime, is indeed invalid.

Of course, what do you do about it? Well you'd have to sue those involved. Note that the lawsuit itself is going to bring this whole thing out into the public eye. There's no DMCA protections on having your image used.

This is progress; This gives a lead to work with. The next issue would be the correct way to approach an Atty. licensed in the state which is of qualified jurisdiction. Whether to sue on with an Atty contingency agreement for damages stemming from the contract, or to ask a licensed Arizona atty. what fee he/she would require to file claim for the sole relief of having the performances that were filmed removed from the producer's website.

Thank you for the input regarding this issue.

- - - Updated - - -

One other very important element of filing for injunction to cease and desist use of the performances on the producer's pay website. Would the admission of partaking in the performances " prostitution " by filing request for injunction relief implicate the female model/talent to have partaken in a " crime "?.. hypothetically. If a crime was committed I am finding, per my research, the statute of limitations would have well been elapsed on the charge of prostitution. Just trying to make sure I am not overlooking anything in this hypothetical situation.

Thanks again for the kind input.

I think she should sue. Arizona is in need of a court decision ruling sex performed within a film is not prostitution. The way the porn industry is wanting to leave California for Arizona the producer may find a fair amount of financial support for such a suit. Of course as Ron stated, this would bring the fact of the films into the public eye.


porn is no more prostitution than filming a fight scene, where actual contact is common, assault and battery. Using the unlawful act nullifying a contract argument could be used in any situation where an actor performed what would be illegal acts if not having been part of the movie.

This is not the type of case an attorney would take on contingency. For that to be possible there would have to be an award sought. I don't see where you see the possibility of damages.

btw: if you or she believes all of her films would magically disappear from the Internet, you are both in for a surprise. If it's on the Internet, it's there, pretty much, forever.

Regardless, a law change after the fact does not nullify a contract that can be exercised anywhere in the US legally. Jokingly, at best, you could expect the Atty. General to monitor the pay web site and subpoena everyone in AZ viewing it to file criminal charges against them.

I am taking in all of the input about the possible outcome. I will need to research when this law changed, if that is the case. I understand an injunction with no award would be what would be sought as relief.

Quote:

---

Quoting BlitzGS430

---

The situation I am tasked to research *theoretically* involves a female that is a resident of Arizona and around years 2004-2005 became a " model/talent " for a fairly new pornographic film directing LLC at that time. Said female remained in this "industry" until somewhere around about 2010-2011 to remain vague. At the time of the initial procurement of her services the director had her read and sign a model release, which of course gave the director use of her image with an infinite time span, and a contract stating the use of her performances to be compensated to her in the form of a monthly payment chronological with a set number of filmed performances per month.

---

You seem to be confusing two separate issues -- the entry into a model release, and the separate contract to participate in the films. There is absolutely nothing unlawful or contrary to public policy in obtaining a model release from somebody you intend to portray in photographs, film or video. I understand why you want to target the release -- because it is your hope that by doing so you can prevent the distribution of the films and images that the woman made under contract -- but it doesn't seem at all likely that you could get that outcome.

In terms of trying to argue that the contract to make the films, itself, is against public policy based upon the theory that participation in a pornographic film constitutes an act of 'prostitution', I think that's also a long shot -- and it raises a host of other issues, such as whether she would have to reimburse the production company for the money she received, and whether the court would have any jurisdiction to limit the distribution of the film or of any other images if it found some basis to rescind the contract. Also, as jk suggests, I would expect that the porn industry would be interested in defending against any such action, and I would expect any sympathetic ruling by a local trial court to be reversed somewhere in the appellate process.

Quote:

---

Quoting BlitzGS430

---

That is one theory, the other thought would be if the female complained to the production company that she was not of sound mind when she signed the release and contract and the result of her actions are causing her unrelenting depression and inability to live a productive life, and to please cease and desist using her image. I doubt this would go very far....

---

Beyond what flyingron indicated, she would have to establish that she was mentally incompetent not only when she signed the release in 2004, but that she remained mentally incompetent through the entire period she worked making the films, as otherwise her repeated choice to enter into contracts to make new films would constitute ratification of the release agreement.

Quote:

---

Quoting BlitzGS430

---

What fee he/she would require to file claim for the sole relief of having the performances that were filmed removed from the producer's website.

---

Nobody here can give you a fee quote for a lawyer. She will discuss her case with the lawyers that she is considering, and they will tell her how much money they will require to start the case, and what additional fees she will owe once her initial retainer is exhausted.

Thanks for the input all. This topic is certainly a learning experience I'm sure for everyone on this forum.

Quote:

---

In terms of trying to argue that the contract to make the films, itself, is against public policy based upon the theory that participation in a pornographic film constitutes an act of 'prostitution', I think that's also a long shot -- and it raises a host of other issues, such as whether she would have to reimburse the production company for the money she received,

---

From my research into this matter I find that if a contract were found void, that the courts would neither enforce goods, services, or products to be returned, NOR reimbursement for the goods, services or products. Basically what happened, happened, but what the void contract produced or generated would cease to resume.

I am sure that the Pornographic Industry would jump on a case of this nature in order to set a landmark in Arizona. The industry I understand is currently seeking means to expand from California as a result of their Pornography regulations becoming more strict.

Thanks all again for seeing this topic from a legal standpoint and not turning this into an opinion fest. From a moral standpoint the favorable result is to *hypothetically assist a young female that did something dumb, now holds a respectable job in the medical field, and wishes to live a close to normal life as possible. in other words this post is not a " how do we help this derelict to society ? " post per se.

- - - Updated - - -

I am now finding that a " model release " is used as a form of contract in the pornography industry. That IS the contract.

This is an interesting read I am finding looking at this topic from a Porn Producer's standpoint. Details that outside of California there will be problems with the model release.

http://adultbizlaw.com/the-problem-with-producing-porn-outside-california/

Quote:

---

Quoting BlitzGS430

---

From my research into this matter....

---

Part and parcel of any rescission of contract is the restoration of the parties to their original condition. It doesn't much matter in the sense that you're speaking of an outcome that is not going to happen, but I hope you're not urging this poor soul to waste her money based upon your misunderstanding of the law.

Quote:

---

Quoting BlitzGS430

---

I am now finding that a " model release " is used as a form of contract in the pornography industry. That IS the contract.

---

No, it is not. It is a model release. The contract for her to work as an actress on pornographic films is the separate contract you described, which outlines what she will do for the production and how much she will be paid.

I can see why the article you found would confuse you. If the author were speaking of a single contract that related to a pornographic performance and incorporated a model release, then the argument he posits -- one that does not appear to have been successfully made in any state in the nation -- would relate to that single contract; and that appears to be what he is suggesting when he argues that the release would include an explicit quid pro quo, "at the heart of every hardcore pornography model release is the exchange of sex for money". But when the release is separate, the argument that the release does not have a "lawful object" is simply not sustainable. The argument might be raised that the model release should not apply to pornography made within the state, for public policy reasons, but that's a very different argument with its own set of flaws -- and such an argument would not invalidate the release itself, as opposed to narrowing its application.

In addition to a rather shaky legal argument, the author fails to address the First Amendment issues -- and there has been plenty of First Amendment litigation over pornography over the past century. You can find some of that history in the text block on pornographic videos, that they're for educational purposes, and also in the "plotting" of most porn films. Whatever a state court might be inclined to do in ignorance or defiance of the First Amendment and federal case law, a federal court is not likely to make the same mistake -- and is likely to recognize the problems raised by allowing people to try to revoke releases they issued as paid participants in videos, movies and photographs. What material is educational? What material is medical? What material is artistic? These are questions not easily answered, and courts are not going to be interested in litigating them case-by-case, merely because adult participants either regret their past role or are trying to shake down the producers for more money.

Thanks for the replies. This is something that has just raised a lot of curiosity on my part. No I have not mentioned the prospect of going this route to have any images removed to the hypothetical female I am referring to in this hypothetical situation. I would not wish to bring someone's hope up and then them be let down. That would cause more stress and anxiety than there already is, i would think.

What would one do though in an event that lets say a relative or close friend were in this situation, what would one do to seek a remedy?