Will *ANYONE* win the U.S. Rights war for GGG/John Thompson Productions?
Joe T.
up to the existence of the european porn godzilla that emerged from
obscurity not all that long ago into its current state of outselling king
kong PRIVATE in europe, the previous king of the euro sales figures ring.
Ofcourse I'm speaking of "GGG - John Thompson Productions". Though GGG's
been posted about on RAME quite often (mostly with pornsumers wondering
about 'where to get it'), I don't think I've seen any discussion about the
GGG U.S. rights issue. Basically a growing number of U.S. porn companies
are wanting more than anything to get their grubby hands on the U.S.
distribution rights for all John Thompson's GGG releases. We all know that
Kick Ass Pictures (assumably) had rights when they distributed three GGG
releases that they re-badged as "Sperm Overdose" Volumes 1, 2 and 3. We
also know that U.S. bootleggers are making $$$ hand over fist selling cheap
VHS dubs over the web for $9.99 in the absence of a commercial entity
distributing the GGG releases in the U.S..
There are conflicting stories about why no U.S. company has yet secured the
rights - however despite them my personal opinion boils down to what
everything boils down to: the bottom line. I believe John Thompson is just
holding out for the right deal and amount of money, emboldened by the insane
success he's having in Europe right now. Hustler reportedly wants the
rights. Kick Ass Pictures wants rights. Extreme Associates would LOVE the
rights but don't have anywhere near the required bankroll so they'll keep
buying lame german releases from hole-in-the-wall euro companies and doing
their silly voiceovers for their U.S. release. Some small players also want
rights.
It will be interesting to see who, if anyone, gets the rights. I just hope
it will be a company that isn't afraid to go head to head against the legal
system, because no doubt in their RAW european form, the GGG releases will
require some heavy editing even for Extreme Associates' standards (tons of
torturous pissing, fisting, bukkage). I can only say hopefully it WONT be
hustler because they'll edit the fuck out of them.
I will tell you this: GGG makes "American Bukkake" releases look like a
ride to grandma's house. Whereas the Amer. Bukkake releases feature a girl
that just sits there like a statue with her eyes closed and assumably counts
down from 500 in her head for the scene to be over, GGG releases feature
some of the wildest application of sperm you've ever seen. The girls look
like they're downright hopped up on something because the ferocity and
intensity with which they accept bucketfuls (literally) of sperm on their
heads, faces, and bodies are downright superhuman.
Any insiders care to enlighten us on what is going on with GGG for the U.S.
??
Joe T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
** internet adult film database at http://www.iafd.com **
Scott Kinney
news:<rame.1022529604p24492@linux>...
> I've been noticing buzz that a growing number of U.S. companies are waking
> up to the existence of the european porn godzilla that emerged from
> obscurity not all that long ago into its current state of outselling king
> kong PRIVATE in europe, the previous king of the euro sales figures ring.
> Ofcourse I'm speaking of "GGG - John Thompson Productions".
Do you have sales figures to back this up? I find it really hard to
believe that
GGG outsells Private, Videorama or DBM in Europe.
As far as why U.S. companies haven't yet secured the rights to
distribute
GGG in the U.S., well, I can only speak to the experiences that Nova
Products and I had negotiating with GGG.
1. Money. We could not negotiate a price we would both be happy with.
2. Record keeping. At least for the titles that we were discussing,
GGG
couldn't produce records to satisfy USC 2257 requirements. For a U.S.
company,
lack of the proper age records is a complete deal-breaker.
Again, I'm only speaking from my experience. I don't know any of the
details
of KickAss Pictures' deal with GGG.
Scott Kinney
Diversified Video Assoc.
Joe T.
isn't being employed anymore then, eh? I've seen this tactic employed quite
often over time when a U.S. company imports a release like from Magma and
real records seemed like too much headache. That was probably easier to
employ as a tactic closer to 1995 than 7 years later now, almost July 2002.
I guess even for the legal powers it might be a little hard to buy that a
modern-looking porn shot on DV cameras of Betacam was produced before '95...
Hmm...
Joe T.
"Scott Kinney" <sc...@xxx-imports.com> wrote in message
news:rame.1022588404p5414@linux...
<snip>
> 2. Record keeping. At least for the titles that we were discussing,
> GGG
> couldn't produce records to satisfy USC 2257 requirements. For a U.S.
> company,
> lack of the proper age records is a complete deal-breaker.
> Scott Kinney
Scott Kinney
> isn't being employed anymore then, eh? I've seen this tactic employed quite
> often over time when a U.S. company imports a release like from Magma and
> real records seemed like too much headache.
First of all, the word "produced" does not refer to when the video was
shot, it refers to the date of production of the videotape or DVD. As I
write this, I'm looking at the DVD compilation "Super Girl", which has,
on its case a USC 2257 compliance statement which names the custodian of
records and gives the address where the records are stored. It also
gives August 2001 as the date of production of the DVD. Now, you might
make the argument that at least some of the material included in the
compilation was filmed before July 1995, but even if it's true it
doesn't change the requirements of the law. If you produced the tape or
disc after July 1995, you must collect the appropriate records...
Further, I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with GGG not
maintaining US-compliant records. To sell his work in Europe, he
doesn't have to. It's only a requirement for selling the work in the
U.S.
Second, as far as I know, no one in the U.S. has a distribution
agreement with Magma (and I'm pretty suprised to see some Magma DVDs in
Canada for that matter.) You see, the guy that owns Magma is deathly
afraid that he would be subject to arrest in the U.S. should his videos
be distributed here. And he likes to vacation here once every year or
so. I'd expect that bootleggers would use the "...produced prior to
July...." dodge, but you can't really judge what a real company would
do based on bootlegger behavior.
Finally, as often as you've brought up the possible legal challenges to
the content of various tapes (Max's "Fist of Fury" and the GGG tapes) I
can't believe you'd think for a minute that a legitimate company would
try to skate around the age records requirements. I mean you would have
to be a complete *moron* to distribute material that you expected to be
challenged, *and* at the same time ignore 2257 requirements. You'd be
trading an interpretive case (obscenity) for a flat violation of
black-letter Federal law.
Frank Simmons
>I
>can't believe you'd think for a minute that a legitimate company would
>try to skate around the age records requirements. I mean you would have
>to be a complete *moron* to distribute material that you expected to be
>challenged, *and* at the same time ignore 2257 requirements.
Well, you'd think that, but Paradise did release a version of WPINK-TV that
still had an underage Ali Moore in it, they just cut out the shots where you
could clearly see her face.
Then again, Paradise is no longer around, are they?
Frank
** Traci, Ginger, Christy, Amber, Angel, Angel W., Candy; Those Were The Days
**
Patrick Riley
>"Joe T." <tes...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:<rame.1022608807p10737@linux>...
>> I take it that the old "this video was produced before July 1995" trick
>> isn't being employed anymore then, eh? I've seen this tactic employed quite
>> often over time when a U.S. company imports a release like from Magma and
>> real records seemed like too much headache.
>First of all, the word "produced" does not refer to when the video was
>shot, it refers to the date of production of the videotape or DVD. As I
>write this, I'm looking at the DVD compilation "Super Girl", which has,
>on its case a USC 2257 compliance statement which names the custodian of
>records and gives the address where the records are stored. It also
>gives August 2001 as the date of production of the DVD. Now, you might
>make the argument that at least some of the material included in the
>compilation was filmed before July 1995, but even if it's true it
>doesn't change the requirements of the law. If you produced the tape or
>disc after July 1995, you must collect the appropriate records...
> I mean you would have
>to be a complete *moron* to distribute material that you expected to be
>challenged, *and* at the same time ignore 2257 requirements. You'd be
>trading an interpretive case (obscenity) for a flat violation of
>black-letter Federal law.
The law is not quite as clear cut as you describe and is subject to
interpretation such that Legend and Video Team (and probably others;
I'm just giving examples here) interpret the date of production as the
various dates on which the video was shot. Thus you'll have a string
of dates such as 1/30/00, 4/7/99, 4/27/99,... (production dates for
the epic Scale Busting Bimbos #1).
Ed, Odyssey, and some of Evil Angel interpret and call it the "Date of
release". The scenes could have been shot years earlier.
Randy West interprets it as (I think) the date he finally assembled
the edited master and calls it the "Date of production".
HomeGrown call it "Date of mastering" which is presumably the date the
edited master was assembled.
It's hard to tell quite what VCA and Vivid use. Sometimes they're more
than a year before the release date but it's difficult to believe that
they produce (cut the final tape) so much in advance. More likely with
them it's the date the last scene was shot. They also include a "Date
of release" presumably to cover their ass if their interpretation is
wrong.
Given that the purpose is to smoke out underage performers, personally
I believe Legend's interpretation is the correct one.
There are also different rules that apply to a holder in due course so
in the case of a purchased scene, you may be able to rely on the
originator's statement that he has the appropriate documentation or
that the scene was shot before the operative date in 1995. Before this
date no documentation is necessary.
Note that I'm not a lawyer and the above might be completely wrong but
I find it interesting that all of the above companies--who have a lot
to lose--have different interpretations. Oh, and there's also the
question as to the date: Does month and year satisfy or does it have
to have a day?
Patrick Riley
You want the truth, read my reviews: you want advertising copy, read others.
Steve Holmes
see many cum shots in his movies but you see seldom men's faces. This has
two reasons. First: most viewers don't want to see men's faces. Second: he
didn't pay the men. Just contrary he charged them.
Thompson put adds in newspapers looking for new (male) pornstars. He
promised them everything, but they had to pay 200 $ for a test shot.
I suppose he never ever believed to make money by selling his movies. He
already made money by shooting them. The girls got small money. And the
guys paid.
Here in Germany GGG has the worst reputation possible in the industry. But
a few of his movies are really sexy.
Steve
Joe T.
While I'm aware of GGG's reputation in Germany since I'm german myself, here
in the U.S. there is a growing reputation since it ventures into the
territory of the bizarre (though its only slightly bizarre in the german
market where much more is acceptable as far as crazy sex) ... I suppose his
reputation is not surprising given he manages to bring some of the worst out
in women, which takes the worst of men. Ofcourse, a growing number of people
feel he's bringing out the BEST in women, depending ofcourse on whether or
not you love crazy porn and things John does like hiring dom-type women to
lightly 'abuse' the other porn starlets in his movies since its more
acceptable than if the men were to perform the same behaviors on the
starlets).
So I guess its an issue of supply and demand - and the demand appears to be
growing worldwide.. And the truly hardcore (relative to the rest of the
industry) pornking that is John Thomson who would be accused by some of
operating in the gutter of gutters seems to at the same time reflect
society's demand for 'the gutter' given the growing demand.
In any case Steve, its great you're active on this forum, and you seem like
a good guy from some of the flicks I've seen while helping to package them
for U.S. release here for a company not to mention your work in other
companies.
-As the great Vince Voyeur once said when asked with which girl he'd ever
had the best sex he replied "the next one".
Joe T.
Los Angeles, California
"Steve Holmes" <Steve_...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:rame.1022661605p25430@linux...
Mike South
On Wed, 29 May 2002 01:43:14 EDT, Patrick Riley <p_r...@pipeline.com>
wrote:
Mike South
The biggest all amateur all original hardcore site on the net
http://www.mikesouth.com
Torris Bin Drinken
wrote:
>It's hard to tell quite what VCA and Vivid use. Sometimes they're more
>than a year before the release date but it's difficult to believe that
>they produce (cut the final tape) so much in advance. More likely with
>them it's the date the last scene was shot. They also include a "Date
>of release" presumably to cover their ass if their interpretation is
>wrong.
There's never any 18 year olds in VCA, Vivid and Wicked so they really
don't have anything to worry about when it comes to covering their
asses
>
Torris