Marian Härtel
Filter nach benutzerdefiniertem Beitragstyp
Beiträge
Wissensdatenbank
Seiten
Filter by Kategorien
Archive
Archive - Old blogposts
Blockchain and law
Blockchain and web law
Blockchain Law
Competition law
Copyright
Corporate
Data protection Law
Esport and politics
Esport Business
Esports
EU law
Featured
Internally
Investments
Labour law
Law and Blockchain
Law and computer games
Law and Esport
Law on the Internet
Law on the protection of minors
News in brief
Online retail
Other
Tax
Uncategorized
Warning
Web3 Law
Youtube video
Just call!

03322 5078053

© A.Savin, WikiCommons

Porn shoot or filmed prostitution?

It is always exciting to see what German courts have to deal with. But it’s great. The following is my first porn post here on the blog!

The plaintiff in a case before the Administrative Court of Aachen produces and distributes pornographic films. In April 2018, he wanted to hold a film production with amateur actors or actresses in the premises of Heinrichsallee 2 in Aachen and advertised this event on the Internet. Performers should pay a “production cost contribution” of €60 for their participation. In return, they were to receive download rights for the films subsequently created and to be distributed on the Internet. The city of Aachen prohibited the plaintiff from holding this event – as it did in 2017 and 2019. The plaintiff had not applied for the permit required under the Prostitute Protection Act. The event is not a film production – which normally does not require a permit.

The complaint against this was unsuccessful. In support of this, the court stated:

Sexual services should be offered for a fee. Thus, it is prostitution. The plaintiff failed to report the event in a timely manner within the time limit under the Prostitute Protection Act. In addition, he did not have a permit to organize and conduct prostitution events. The film production was not free of permission, since it was an event aimed at an open circle of participants. For their participation, the “performers” would have had to pay a fee to be able to perform sexual acts with “Jasmin Babe.” The “production cost contribution” was not a special feature typical of the scene. Thus the plaintiff itself had offered a daily fee of up to 1,000, – € for “newcomers” in an advertisement for the advertisement of “hardcore actresses”. The filming of the event and the use of individual scenes for the production of a pornographic film would not deprive the event of its character as a prostitution event.

As soon as the written judgment is available, the plaintiff can file an application for leave to appeal, which will be decided by the Higher Administrative Court in Münster.

Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel is a lawyer and entrepreneur specializing in copyright law, competition law and IT/IP law, with a focus on games, esports, media and blockchain.

Phone

03322 5078053

E‑mail

info@rahaertel.com