AFI Think Tank

Legal IssuesRegarding Safety of Performers in

the Adult Film Industry

by

Maria de CesareOctober 27, 2006UCLA Think Tank

AFI Think Tank

“...During production of the 1997 movie ‘Mimic,’ American Humane Association Representatives wandered through the Los Angeles set, ensuring that a herd of cockroaches was well taken care of. Licensed animal handlers were to follow state and federal anti-cruelty laws designed to protect the insects, which had been trained to swirl around actress Mira Sorvino's feet. The roaches had to be fed at a certain time. They could only work a few hours each day. They could not be harmed.

At the same time, in studios in the San Fernando Valley, scores of other actors and actresses were working on movies. They put in long hours, commonly without meal breaks. They often worked without clean toilets, toilet paper, soap or water. More importantly, they were exposed to a host of infectious, and sometimes fatal, diseases.”* Source: P.J. Huffstutter, See No Evil, L.A. Times, Jan. 12, 2003, I (Magazine).

AFI Think Tank

Two issues:

Protections for mainstream actors vs. AFI actors

Employee vs. Independent Contractor status

AFI Think Tank

Mainstreamvs.

Adult Film Industry

Protections for Actors:

AFI Think Tank

In the “Mainstream”:

AFI Think Tank

Employeevs.

Independent Contractor

Employment Status:

AFI Think Tank

• General Code of Safe Practices for Production• Recommendations for Safety with Firearms

and Use of Blank Ammunition• Stunts• Animal Handling Rule• SCUBA Equipment Recommendations• Guidelines for Traditional Camera Cars• Power Line Distance Requirements• Safety Guidelines for Multiple Dressing Room

Units• Guidelines for Use of Artificially Created

Smoke, Fogs, and Lighting Effects• Guidelines for Use of Fixed-Wing Aircraft in

Motion Picture Production• Gasoline Operated Equipment• Water Hazards• Guidelines for Safe Use of Airbags• Guidelines for Use of Motor Cycles• Guidelines for Use of Exotic Venomous

Reptiles

• Guidelines for Use of Elevating Work Platforms

• Poisonous Plants• Guidelines for Safety Around Hot Air

Balloons• Safety with Edged and Piercing Props• Safety Awareness When Working Around

Indigenous “Critters”• Food Handling Guidelines• Working in Extreme Hot/Cold Temperatures• Guidelines for Inclement or Severe Weather• Guidelines for Handling Freshly Painted

Backdrops and Other Graphic Arts• Safety Awareness for Photographic Dust

Effects• Preparing Urban Exterior Locations• Guidelines for the Use of Open Flames of

Motion Picture Sets• Guidelines for Appropriate Clothing and

Personal Protective Equipment• Parachuting and Skydiving

* Source: Safety Bulletins Recommended by the Industry-Wide Labor-Management Safety Committee, Contract Services Administrative Trust Fund, https://csatf.org/bulletintro.shtml

AFI Think Tank

“Economic Realities” TestIs the alleged employee economically dependent on the alleged employer?

* Source: Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 726-27 (1947). See also S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989).

Does the alleged employer control, or have the right to control, the manner and means in which work is performed?

AFI Think Tank

“Economic Realities” Test

1. Does the principal retain pervasive control over the operation as a whole?

2. Are the worker’s duties an integral part of the operation?

3. Does the nature of the work make detailed control unnecessary?

* Source: Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 726-27 (1947). See also S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989).

…part II