Channel 4 tonight Am-Porn

[CandiceParis]

Hi

Its late so I will reply more fully later. But I will say that there was a lot filmed that was not aired, I am sure you would be awere of this.

Ch4 paid not jsu for the location, but they paid us part of the model fees, our fee ?1k per day. They gave us a "structure" they wanted us to setup as being a typical days shoot. They did this as they couldn't find anyone else to contribute, but also as they could use us/me to bad mouth porn, sadley we did feel they wer going to me a little more balanced.

Also Ch4 breached copyright showing clips from our DVD. They also breached rules when they gave us a credit.

I am sure my comments will make sence to you if indeed you are in the industry. I believe this prgram was "manufactered" by ch4 to get a prgram, certainly our part was. And this is not what docum'ts are ment to be like.

[PKAY]

Obviously the legal issues with you and Channel 4 can't be commented on by me.

As far as content goes you are being naive if you think that TV gives us a balanced view of the world and even more naive to behave like you did in the 'breath play' scene and not expect it to get used in the final programme. TV tends to go for the extremes, the bad, the good, the dirty, the sad etc. It wasnt sto tittalate, make the viewer squirm and does that by creating characters, sometimes out of context. The fact is that the things that we saw you do and say on the programme are things you really did say and do. OK they might have filmed you helping an old lady accross the road or paying your Gas bill but are they going to show that or you getting excited about that clip? If you don't want stuff being seen, don't do it in front of the camera! I am sure that is what you would say to any of your actresses who changed their mind or didn't like certain bits being in your end product.

[Bob Singleton]

CandiceParis wrote:


SNIP ...

Ch4 paid not jsu for the location, but they paid us part of the model fees, our fee ?1k per day. They gave us a "structure" they wanted us to setup as being a typical days shoot. They did this as they couldn't find anyone else to contribute, but also as they could use us/me to bad mouth porn, sadley we did feel they wer going to me a little more balanced.

Also Ch4 breached copyright showing clips from our DVD. They also breached rules when they gave us a credit.

... SNP

=======================================================

Let me get this straight... Channel 4 paid you a daily fee for taking part in the documentary, which was to cover location and models, etc.

They used the footage they shot of you in their documentary. You say they also used footage from a DVD. Who gave them the DVD? Did you read the contract I presume they asked you to sign? Did the contract include a clause allowing them to use excerpts from the DVD?

I seriously doubt a production company making a documentary for a major terestrial broadcaster would make the schoolboy error of using footage they had no right to use.

Instead, I believe you are an incredibly stupid (and dangerous) person whose ego and arrogance has placed them in a position where they have done irreparable harm to the UK adult industry. Furthermore you obviously think everyone else to be as stupid as you if you expect us to believe your story of C4 using content they had no right to use.

You are in no position to complain about C4 not being balanced... you gave them all the ammunition they could possibly want to show you as a callous, tight-fisted, dangerous and sick individual... or did they use a stand-in and CGI?

Nope... that was you behaving like an utter prat!


Every model, production and distribution company... indeed anyone and everyone involved in the "glamour" industry (from topless to porn) should shun you.

[Rest of post removed by mod]

[EMPREX]

Glad someone else states facts & sends the same message as myself and the rest of the industry

Your kind are not wanted!!!

EMPEROR

[Cenobitez]

Milk Float and Sourcer to Bobs Table

I didnt see the show, I was escorting at the time well in a hotel room with 2 escorts and they was paying me to be there, so i say escorting

But from what i read your comments are quite appropriate i'm just adding a little light hearted humour

[CandiceParis]

Hi Bob

I shant comment on our personal issues.

1 - Yes Ch4 paid us, ?1k per day, plus models fees, we got ?300 for a location fee in total not per day.

2- Ch4 has NO written or verbal agreement with me or CandiceParis.com to show clips of the Real Girlfriends DVD. Therefore this is a clear breach of copyright.

3- A school boy error maybe, or maybe they don't know my liking of litergation!! My last sucessful out of court settlement was ?100k, this was in relation to an authority giving my then wife videos & images which were never returned to me. For legal reasons I can't go into it fully, but if you as our mutual friend she will know the full story, although she had NO involvement in it.

4- I am not complaining to you or any other people in the Adult Industry.

5- You don't know anything about me other than what yu have heard third hand and from the same source. I too heard alot about you, when two of those very same people where saying stuff about you. All I did was to report it to the Police. They will make their dission, just like when the very same two people complained to the Police about me and when this was fully investgated I was found not guilty - as oposed to insuff. evid.

6- My point being, not to slate anybody, but there are two sides to every story & any Tv program is about sturing up interest. Supprised you don't appear to understand this.

7- Tight fisted, my reply to that is that if I agree a fee prior to a shoot and the work is done I stick to that fee. I will not rise it just for the sake of it or because the Tv cameras are there and a model decides to play to them & make a issue over ?20.

8- Can I ask you a question, If you agree a fee with a dancer & she turns up does the work agreed no less and no extra, and says she wants more money would you pay it, and if yes for what reason.
Please do anwser Bob because nobody wants to answer that question on the forum.

9- The clip you may be infuring too with breath play, as I am getting so much stick over it, I will be unloading a the full un edited clip, people can make their own educated dessions on it.

10- We have worked with many many models & have had know problems, I think that the people that know us, know that we aren't that bad. Obviosly there are shoots that could have gone better, but I think we producers & models have all had shots like that.

11- I do find it hard to accpt your comments as you & I have had a issue with your unauthorised use on my images on your website. I agree you did take them off eventually but also gave me some abuse in the process. Perhaps when you spend a lot of money on model fees etc & people use your photos without asking you will understand why this is so displeasing. I am sure I speak for many many producers/photograthers that have had their materail used where its not supposed to be (I don't mean on your website) I mean in general.

[Cenobitez]

OK now i have a few comments.

First i'm pretty sure you mean litigation as litergation is either something your cat does or needs a keep britain tidy logo on it

Number 7, TV and Adult Movie are 2 different things, If i was booked to do an Adult DVD thats what i expect to do, If i am booked for TV my price increases, as the exposure and proffit increases. Thats called Business!

I was looking into hiring military equipment, tanks, choppers, canons etc etc, and the company asked me my use of it, TV, Movie work, the profitability of the work is alot bigger and thus his price was higher.

With TV any fool with a TV Set can see, which is massive exposure, and not all guys and girls want their neighbours to know, so if I wasnt told was a TV shoot, i'd have just classed it as a cancellation!

[Jock Strap]

I've only just watched the documentary and I have to say it was pretty typical CH 4 fare. Nothing new.
I did cringe at the bit where the female producer put on the DVD in front of her family. I don't know if that was instigated by the programme makers but it was just wrong! The laughter seemed to be out of embarrassment than anything else.
I think Leeanne's parents came out of it best showing dignity and love for their daughter who had simply made a mistake.

[Bob Singleton]

CandiceParis wrote:



5- You don't know anything about me other than what yu have heard third hand and from the same source. I too heard alot about you, when two of those very same people where saying stuff about you. All I did was to report it to the Police. They will make their dission, just like when the very same two people complained to the Police about me and when this was fully investgated I was found not guilty - as oposed to insuff. evid.

ANSWER - If you wrote in English I might have a clearer idea of what you are saying... are you insinuating that the police are investigating me? If so how do you know when I don't? And what's it about?

What I know about you is what about a dozen or more girls who have worked for/with you have told me about you.



8- Can I ask you a question, If you agree a fee with a dancer & she turns up does the work agreed no less and no extra, and says she wants more money would you pay it, and if yes for what reason. Please do anwser Bob because nobody wants to answer that question on the forum.


ANSWER - I pay the agreed fee. However, unlike you, I don't agree a fee and then make out a lower sum was agreed!



11- I do find it hard to accpt your comments as you & I have had a issue with your unauthorised use on my images on your website. I agree you did take them off eventually but also gave me some abuse in the process.

ANSWER - Well we both know that this is not the case. A model gave me her photo to use on my website. Most models have a portfolio of pictures which, although they may not own the copyright, they have permission to use for promotional purposes. When you asked me to remove the photo, I merely asked you to provide me with proof that you owned the copyright. Otherwise any Tom, Dick or Harry could email people saying "take my photo down". If anyone was abusive it was you. As you well know, within an hour of you sending me the required proof (which took you 3 days to send!), the photo was removed.

I really can't see what problem you have with me. However, from the various insulting and abusive phone calls and emails I have received from you in the past, it seems you DO have a problem with me. Pray tell me what it is that I have done... other than seeing you for the distasteful and untrustworthy person you are?