New AV Law

[Electromog]

The problem with a lot of KV scenes is they have lots of actors, and any one of them could decide he wants the video gone and they'll have to pull it. The risk is much bigger than with a one on one movie because then only 2 people can change their mind.

After all, the law doesn't say you can have the video removed if you were tricked or coerced, it says you can have it removed for *any* reason. You don't even have to say why. It has little to do with how professional or amateur the studio is, you could work for one of the major studios and still don't like that some people recognise you in the street or something, or fall in love and don't want stuff out there of you fucking somebody else.

 

[djlandd01]

Because i thought kv is also a kind of non professional studio so that would affect them too... or am i wrong with that point of view?

I was kinda hoping you would fill that same question, I am a newbie as well so no idea, was hoping you would elaborate on it. Perhaps someone else will. hopefully KV continues doing their shit, I like there IDs

 

[intrepid8]

After all, the law doesn't say you can have the video removed if you were tricked or coerced, it says you can have it removed for *any* reason. You don't even have to say why. It has little to do with how professional or amateur the studio is, you could work for one of the major studios and still don't like that some people recognise you in the street or something, or fall in love and don't want stuff out there of you fucking somebody else.

That may be true, but if the translation earlier in the thread is accurate, my reading of 7-9 and 10-14 implies that penalties could be imposed on the performer for having a title pulled from the market for circumstances not explicitly mentioned therein.

There also seems to be an initial 2 year period (initially, later reverting to 1 year) before contracted performers can pull the title, at least without legal justification. Presumably so the producers can actually make money off the project.

I would have to assume that sales after one year of a JAV release must be insignificant enough that the studios don't care enough to fight this legislation harder to keep them in their libraries.

Upshot? Buy your titles early and don't expect them to stick around forever.

Or alternatively if there are too many hurdles as a Westerner towards legit buying - and I mean buying in the loosest sense of the word, ie. having the ability to stream or download and verify through DRM for as long as the provider wants (or is able) to make it available - do what people have done since time immemorial and get a pirated download of the fucking thing if a Blu-ray can't be sourced or isn't desired.

If you're not in Japan, you're clearly not the target market anyway. They don't care about you. If there was a significant interest in the international market we would already see studio organized offshore distributors releasing uncensored versions of these titles.

 

[rice12345]

Seems like a whole mess of trouble but it doesn't affect pirates at all.

 

[samurai79]

Damn... does this new law mean that we wont see any new nakadeshi/bukkake series from knights visual anymore and also no more new hardcore bukkake stuff from milky cat/urabukkake? Thats pretty shiiit... :/

This is coming out in July.
Could be decent if the cum is real.

https://ec.sod.co.jp/prime/videos/?id=SDDE-677

 

[princeali692]

This is coming out in July.
Could be decent if the cum is real.

https://ec.sod.co.jp/prime/videos/?id=SDDE-677

This was produced before the AV law came into affect, but yes looks great!

 

[arnoldlayne]

This is nothing but good because it will require studios to pay a fair percentage of sales and also residuals to keep actresses from pulling videos from sale. The increased pay will attract better looking girls instead of the quantity over quality garbage that the industry is doing right now. They fully deserve the regulation after scamming girls by paying them a flat $1000 for a video that brings in hundreds of thousands and then is sold in dozens of other compilation videos.

Greatly increasing the pay and forcing them to give residuals on the sales on every video they appear in will bring in far better looking women like the other entertainment industries. A LOT more girls will consider AV if they see it can bring in money for years after they retired. It will bring a new golden age of AV rather than the current race to the bottom its in right now where every cover is insanely photoshopped because they cant get anyone that looks good to work for $1000 a month.

JAV has become an absolute shit show so hopefully it's reckoning is finally here.

 

[princeali692]

This is nothing but good because it will require studios to pay a fair percentage of sales and also residuals to keep actresses from pulling videos from sale. The increased pay will attract better looking girls instead of the quantity over quality garbage that the industry is doing right now. They fully deserve the regulation after scamming girls by paying them a flat $1000 for a video that brings in hundreds of thousands and then is sold in dozens of other compilation videos.

Greatly increasing the pay and forcing them to give residuals on the sales on every video they appear in will bring in far better looking women like the other entertainment industries. A LOT more girls will consider AV if they see it can bring in money for years after they retired. It will bring a new golden age of AV rather than the current race to the bottom its in right now where every cover is insanely photoshopped because they cant get anyone that looks good to work for $1000 a month.

JAV has become an absolute shit show so hopefully it's reckoning is finally here.

Less actresses will be active in the mainstream AV industry if this law proceeds enacted as it is currently written. This law hurts actresses way more than the big "evil" industry that "deserves" the regulation because at least if the mainstream AV companies adapt they still dictate who gets a job in it and pay. Even if a lot more girls want to do AV, under this law it is going to be very difficult because of the way the contractual process has to work going forward. There will undoubtedly be less jobs for actresses to fill thus the ones who do get the jobs will be the ones who play ball most favorably with the industry.

The other scenario is that the mainstream AV industry just goes underground where there are no protections. Or the left over actresses just go to underground AV makers who don't behold themselves to the law. I don't think you have all the information at hand. This is a law written by people who in their ideal world AV would just disappear entirely.

 

[branbran726]

That may be true, but if the translation earlier in the thread is accurate, my reading of 7-9 and 10-14 implies that penalties could be imposed on the performer for having a title pulled from the market for circumstances not explicitly mentioned therein.

The law as written is expressly designed to make it so there are no consequences for the actress. Let me know the part you refer to, and I'll correct the translation.

Greatly increasing the pay and forcing them to give residuals on the sales on every video they appear in will bring in far better looking women like the other entertainment industries.

Apart from pay changes resulting from shrinking the industry, one actress, I forgot who, pointed out that this will reduce residuals.

A few years back, there was a change in how the AV industry handles compilations or best-of content. Where previously it'd all go to the studio or management agency (which might then give some to the actress), the new pay scheme gives the lion's share of royalties on compilations to the actresses in them. I think this new law makes it so that studios have to sign a new contract with the performer to release a compilation - and the compilation would have its own 1-year grace period.

 

[intrepid8]

The law as written is expressly designed to make it so there are no consequences for the actress. Let me know the part you refer to, and I'll correct the translation.

It's odd... 10-14 heavily implies that there are situations in which the Producer can seek damages/apply penalties while simultaneously stating that clauses in the contract specifying damages are null and void. Maybe it's entirely up to the court system to assess damages?

Looks like there's a free pass to cancel for at minimum 1 year for the Performer along with reasons for health and safety, coercion, failure to specify AV being recorded, start dates and publication dates etc.

Honestly, the 1 year thing seems backwards to me. I would expect it to be hard to cancel the title in the first year (due to profitability) and easier afterwards (remove sales after leaving industry). Seems to be the opposite unless I'm misreading this.

 

[branbran726]

It's odd... 10-14 heavily implies that there are situations in which the Producer can seek damages/apply penalties while simultaneously stating that clauses in the contract specifying damages are null and void. Maybe it's entirely up to the court system to assess damages?

I don't see how it can imply that at the same time as expressly forbidding it. There are two mentions in that section of forbidding the Producers from seeking redress of damages: one for non-fulfillment of contract or anything else before publishing, and one for cancellation after publication because the Performer had a hangnail or whatever.

If cancelled as a result of one of the above reasons, the Producer may not seek redress of damages resulting from cancellation.

Producers cannot seek redress of damages as a result of such cancellation.

Again, can you clarify how you draw your conclusion?

Notably, the law does not specify that Producers can't seek redress of damages from the Performer. It says they can't seek redress, full stop. They are essentially denied legal standing to sue in situations caused by the Performer's decisions.

 

[intrepid8]

I'll pass and save us the aggravation.

The whole thing reads like a mess and arguing for or against legal justifications from a translation seems like a fool's errand to me!

 

[branbran726]

Some clarifications and additional rules have been announced by the executive branch.
Additional Rules Full Law Text Clarifications

Just some bits and pieces...

• The Additional Rules specify that the required explanations must be given in a translation that the Performer can understand (e.g. if they ask for it in Korean or Chinese, the Producer has to provide it for people who cannot understand a legal document in Japanese), and must be in at least 12-point font.
• The contract must delineate the geographic reach of the publishing, including if published overseas. If it's to be provided on an internet server, the location (country) and entity in charge of the server must be given.
• Contracts must have a section about the STI/STD testing to be required of Performers.
• The Producer must provide an explanation of relevant sections as the Performer is reading along.

• The Clarifications hold that each new AV release, including compilations of previously filmed material, require a new contract, even if the copyrights to the material have changed hands.
• The contract must include the name and contact information of the Producer and specifics on the sex acts to be filmed. (No real street pick-ups, no actors showing up in masks and switching out mid-scene.)
• The section requiring that the Producer outlines the desired contents includes "sexual intercourse" as something that could be filmed, giving the lie to the explanation that the reason you have mosaics in JAV is to maintain plausible deniability that people are actually having sex on camera.
• The explanation of contents must also include who is going to be touching whom and where, whether contraception will be used, the number of times the Performer will do sexual acts, any action catering to specific fetishes, and generally anything that could influence the Performer's decision on whether to sign the contract.
• The explanation of who they will be filmed with may be a list of potential partners, or the specifics on how the casting process will be carried out. (So Fan Thanksgiving JAV are probably still OK...as long as every one of the fans also signs their own contract.)
• The duration of the work being available must be specified (e.g. From 2022-06-29 to 2027-06-28, or From 2022-06-29 For a Period of 72 Months).
• The duration of publishing may not be given as "Until XX copies are sold" or "Until XX yen has been recuperated", nor can it be "Until the publisher no longer feels it necessary to make it available". (I see these a lot on FC2.)
• The duration may be given as ending "when the Performer asks for the publishing to cease", in respect of the law giving performers the right to recall their products after 5 years of inactivity. However, this must be done in addition to specifying an end-of-publication date.
  • I don't know how this will affect the production of actual DVDs, Blu-Rays, or other physical media. It is very much written to favor the Performer, ostensibly so that they can get on with their lives in peace after appearing in JAV. So Producers who make physical media might have to take on the additional responsibility to recall their products after the specified period of publishing expires.
• The Performer must be provided with the way to contact any and all valid publishers of the work; to include the websites where the work is posted or DVDs are sold, as well as the companies handling real DVD sales and/or rentals.
• Even things like camera tests or cover photography may not take place until 1 month after the Performer received their copies of the contract.
• Although the law doesn't use the term "safe word", it does require that the Producer make sure the Performer can express their desire to stop filming at any time (even, presumably, if they are gagged as part of the work).
• The contract is null and void if it includes language like, "The Performer will pay XXX Yen if they don't appear on the filming day", or anything else that implies the Performer would have to pay anything at all as a result of exercising their rights.
• Producers should "avoid the filming of activities which risk the health of the Performer, as well as sexual activities which are unhygienic." Hard S&M or Scat stuff is not expressly forbidden, but it is discouraged.
• Producers are also discouraged from filming any activity that would result in the Performer having an unwanted pregnancy.
• In the case of an interview where the answers to questions could make it easier for someone to track down the Performer IRL, the Performer should be made aware that they cannot be forced to answer.
• The Performer cannot waive the 4 month period between the last day of filming and the first day of publishing; the responsibility to wait is laid on the Producer.
• "The last day of filming" is considered to be the last day any part of the video material to be included in the finished product is filmed. (That is, it's not the Performer's last day, it's the cameraman's last day.)
• If a Performer is in a contractual arrangement with a management agency, they can require as part of the contract that the Performer appear on TV shows, events, and other entertainment activities. That contract may not require the Performer to appear in AV.
• Language limiting the Producer's liability for their own unlawful activities is null and void, as is language limiting the Producer's other responsibilities toward the Performer. (For example, they can't say, "The Producer will not be responsible if the Performer becomes pregnant." So no more Haramase-man.)
• The Performer is not required to return their payment in order to exercise their right to cancel. However, if they have been paid already they must return that payment. Conversely, if the AV has already been filmed (but maybe not released), the Producer must pay the Performer for that labor.
  • The law doesn't go into specifics as to how much the Performer is entitled to for filming if the work is not published; rather, I take it as saying that if royalties/residuals are part of the contract, the Producer is not required to pay them; they're only paying for the work done.
• If the contract is cancelled, the Producer may no longer publish the AV.
  • This is written very broadly. I think it's even possible to construe it as saying the Producer can't publish the AV even if they edit that Performer's scenes out completely.
• The right to request cessation of publication extends even to compelling people who publish copies of JAV online...
• The Producers are required to comply with a request to cease publishing, to the point of providing information on the publishers.
  • If I'm reading the law correctly, this also means that the Producers are responsible for contacting the publishers and making the request known.
• Producers may be required to provide information on the availability of pirated or bootleg copies, as well as joining with the Performer in giving the Pirates or bootleggers notice to cease publication.

 

[intrepid8]

Seems like any spontaneity will have to be scripted out in the submission. Protecting the performers is one thing but the intent here almost feels like regulating the industry out of existence.

 

[headcrusher]

• Producers are also discouraged from filming any activity that would result in the Performer having an unwanted pregnancy.

So this means we won't be any creampie from now on, right?

 

[ramp_it_up]

• Producers are also discouraged from filming any activity that would result in the Performer having an unwanted pregnancy.

So this means we won't be any creampie from now on, right?

lol, when was the last time cream pies were real

 

[headcrusher]

lol, when was the last time cream pies were real

Well, 95% of nowadays creampies are fake, but I'm pretty sure some studio don't fake them. Even if it's only in some movies.

 

[branbran726]

• Producers are also discouraged from filming any activity that would result in the Performer having an unwanted pregnancy.

So this means we won't be any creampie from now on, right?

I've seen an AV from around 10 years ago where the actor hands the girl a Morning After Pill after he blows his load in her.

There are all sorts of contraception other than condoms. With the new law, actresses even have a month to get ready with an IUD or Depo Provera or whatever.

========
The law gives surprisingly few details on exactly how the Performer is supposed to 'review' the AV before publishing. Not even a gesture as to what a Performer should do if there's content they object to -- other than cancel the contract entirely, of course. I'm sure the Producers would rather edit content than throw it away, but while it's specific down to the font size of the contract, they put very little on paper regarding the 4-month check period.

 

[Inertia]

branbran726, per giving her a 'pill', it could have been staged ala many other things in JAV.

 

[branbran726]

branbran726, per giving her a 'pill', it could have been staged ala many other things in JAV.

My point is that this law does nothing new to prevent filming of actual creampie footage as @headcrusher seemed to fear. The same precautions can be taken. The only new things are the added methods of recourse for when precautions are not taken.