Quote:

Let's use Kira Kenner's contract with Vivid as an example. According to Vivid's attorney, Kira was paid 300k or less from 1999-2004. That's 60k a year. Kira only averaged 10 films a year, so her per film rate was high but the volume was too low to sustain any serious income.

The flip side is that these girls sign away their rights in perpetuity (forever). Vivid will be selling Kira Kenner condoms when she is dead and she will see nothing.

How many films has Ava done with AE? 10? Imagine that she is making 5k a film? Now how much income is that? What these girls give up to get their contracts borders on unconscionable.



Good example...I was thinking about making another thread in General Porn Talk to discuss the whole contract issue, especially when you consider the recent revelations from Aria/Marie Silva who was apparently earning around $250,000 a year as a jobbing gonzo girl (and not a particularly hot one either, IMHO).

Contracts make sense if they fit the performer, i.e. a girl that does a lot of feature dancing like Stormy Daniels will certainly benefit from the publicity push that Wicked's PR department will give her, and vice versa. There are also other benefits that very few independent girls will be offered, like residuals and signature toys/pussy moulds.

As you correctly point out, the workload is a lot less, as is the earning potential (from performance only).

However, I think there are benefits in the long run...nobody is running around talking about Kaylani Lei's asshole falling out or Lanny Barbie crapping herself in the make up chair. That's because these girls have a lot more relaxed schedule in terms of performing, ergo they don't get shot out either metaphorically or physically as quickly as an independent gonzo starlet will. We should remember though that the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long...it's your classic hare vs. tortoise scenario, only with assfucking and facials.

Getting back to Kira (why is there not more discussion of this case?), what is your considered legal opinion on her chances? I'm sure that Steve Hirsch has dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's in regard to their contractual obligation, but I think the STD issue on the Paul Thomas set might be a tricky one. If it's settled in court as opposed to outside of it, I think it has the potential to set an interesting precedent for the entire industry vis a vis producer liability and performer's contractual obligations...time will tell!