"Bareback model seeks legal action over HIV infection":

[Titanmen]

http://www.boyz.co.uk/pdfs/848/pdfs/...n_The_Know.pdf

"One of three young men who was infected with HIV during a bareback porn shoot is seeking legal advice to make a claim of negligence against the film’s producers, write Karl Riley and Paul Steinberg.

The film, entitled British Bareback Vacation, was released on DVD last week by Load XXX Films, and is now available for purchase through numerous online adult shopping sites. Craig* told Boyz that he was outraged that the company had released the film, the production of which resulted in three new cases of HIV, as we exclusively reported last month. Since then, the story has been picked up by gay media across the world.

....

[Lee]

This is why every content producer, not just those shooting bareback, should be asking for and getting an STD test from their models.

Hopefully this will shake things up in the industry a little to the point where if this kid wins, every gay producer will start requesting recent STD tests of their talent through fear of being sued.

Regards,

Lee

[longboardjim]

if you perform "bareback" you are taking the risk of contracting HIV regardless of if the other took a test or not? , tests are not 100% , condoms can break! , it's a bit late for the model and maybe if they had used a condom there might have been a case here.
i'm sorry i can't be more sympathetic , if maybe the film produced had used condoms and it broke in the performer i might be more understanding. ( interpreted: ..."if you play prepare to pay!"... )

jim

[Lee]

if you perform "bareback" you are taking the risk of contracting HIV regardless of if the other took a test or not? , tests are not 100% , condoms can break! , it's a bit late for the model and maybe if they had used a condom there might have been a case here.
i'm sorry i can't be more sympathetic , if maybe the film produced had used condoms and it broke in the performer i might be more understanding. ( interpreted: ..."if you play prepare to pay!"... )

jim

Fortunately for this model though, UK law doesnt see it that way, the producer is liable for the 'injury' and also possibly liable for 'industrial injury' caused 'on the job' this producer needs to have a pretty hefty insurance policy in place because this model, if it goes to court, will win hands down purely because the producer (it would appear) was negligent in not requiring these performers to have tests.

Also, if this one model wins, you can bet the other two will also pursue cases against them.

At least by winning this case the kid in question is going to recover damages that will ensure he'll get adequate health care and support for his injuries whilst working for his employer.

Regards,

Lee

[Squirt]

http://www.boyz.co.uk/pdfs/848/pdfs/...n_The_Know.pdf

"One of three young men who was infected with HIV during a bareback porn shoot is seeking legal advice to make a claim of negligence against the film’s producers, write Karl Riley and Paul Steinberg.

The film, entitled British Bareback Vacation, was released on DVD last week by Load XXX Films, and is now available for purchase through numerous online adult shopping sites. Craig* told Boyz that he was outraged that the company had released the film, the production of which resulted in three new cases of HIV, as we exclusively reported last month. Since then, the story has been picked up by gay media across the world.

....

Wow thanks for the update. Very interesting indeed.

One has to wonder where personal responsibility lies these days. All this producer has to do during discovery (if they have that in Britain) is find where the models went to school, and what their sex education class entailed, proving they were well aware of the risks of unprotected sex.

But as Lee said in his response here it seems some sort of workplace injury claim may be warranted. Then again, if you're aware of a danger at the workplace, and put yourself in danger anyway, where is the liablity?

I haven't filmed bareback Gay sex but I hate to see this issue become something to divide us further as an industry. It doesn't have to be this way.

[longboardjim]

i guess i'm looking at this as the model agreed to "bareback" thus he is responsible for his actions. ( interpreted: is a gun manufacturer liable should a consumer shoot himself? )
it is good that his goverment will take care of him , i'm still not understanding what kind of a message this will send out other than what i've mentioned that "tests' are not 100% and sometimes the results do not appear till later. ( interpreted: i test my models rigourously but tests are not 100% , i cannot follow them around 24/7 to verify they are not performing bareback , so i have to put all my "faith"? into a molded penis sleeve which i do not manufacture. )
i have produced "bareback" , i still view it as a personal choice and not one to be dictated by goverment , the reason i stopped was because it became too "high-risk" because often "bareback" performers perform bareback "off camera" and i did not want to be liable for what they may contract "outside" ( interpreted: i would rather deal with HIV tests and condoms and hope that either isn't faulty. )

jim

p.s ~ i have attached a pic to this post , if it is too graphic please remove it and my appologies to those that may be offended. ( interpreted: sometimes the way to fight fire is with fire. )

[basschick]

most companies in any industry are required to test to keep their environment safe. no one says "it's okay if people work in a factory using asbestos - those people know the risk they're taking". instead they make the companies test for safe levels and working conditions. where arie works, they are required to test machines, test air, pass tests regarding how clean one of the rooms is, and there are more.

why should porn be any different?

Wow thanks for the update. Very interesting indeed.

One has to wonder where personal responsibility lies these days. All this producer has to do during discovery (if they have that in Britain) is find where the models went to school, and what their sex education class entailed, proving they were well aware of the risks of unprotected sex.

But as Lee said in his response here it seems some sort of workplace injury claim may be warranted. Then again, if you're aware of a danger at the workplace, and put yourself in danger anyway, where is the liablity?

I haven't filmed bareback Gay sex but I hate to see this issue become something to divide us further as an industry. It doesn't have to be this way.

[banderas]

But how does he prove that he got HIV on this movie making? maybe he had it before... some of them definitely... or they want to say that he doesnt asked for their HIV test?

2 content providers: How does you solve the problem? I heard these day before they shoot, everybody goes thru hospital and make express tests (result the same day) anf after that shoot content is it so?