Early last year, we reported on the lawsuit by former porn star Kaho Shibuya over the leaking of her past content.
What happens to your work after you retire is a matter of concern for adult video performers, who have historically lacked control over how production companies and distributors make money off their bodies. It has been common for studios to continue releasing older content in anthologies long after a performer has officially stopped working in the industry.
A new lawsuit at Tokyo District Court shows another side to this issue. The stripper Miyuki Ariga (有賀美雪) is suing a top AV website operator over its distribution of porn productions going back 30 years.
According to a report in the Japan Times, Ariga consented only to the distribution of the movies at theaters.
This is unusual: AV is generally not shown at theaters, and our research indicates that these four films are not hardcore porn (AV) but softcore sexploitation productions, known as pink films in Japan, which feature sex scenes and nudity but the sex is always simulated.
It is the kind of commercial exploitation that the new porn law, which gives more power to performers and ensures producers clarify details about shoots and content better in advance, is trying to address.
Ariga is demanding that Fanza remove the content and seeking ¥1.5 million in damages.
The four productions were shot in 1994 but the contract stipulated they would only be shown in a few theaters. But Ariga found out 13 years ago that these old productions were available on DVD (a format that remains popular for porn in Japan). Indeed, we found them easily on Amazon Japan.
And then she discovered that Fanza — DMM’s porn streaming and retail platform — was offering the videos and she decided to sue.
It takes pluck for a middle-aged women to take on one of the giants in the industry, but Ariga believes her case is backed up by the new porn law, which prohibits the release of an AV without performer permission, though the law is not retroactive and our understanding is that the period in which a performer can halt a production after it is filmed is only two years. We are not sure there is any legal precedent for such a historical case across different distribution channels and formats.
In particular, since she now works as an artist and dancer, the ongoing distribution of the content damages her reputation, Ariga claims. Part of her dance performance involves striptease, however, and a judge may not be convinced (if anything, having AV credits to your name might boost your reputation and appeal as a stripper).
“Being a stripper involves more than just nudity. For me, it’s a form of artistic expression, a performance where nudity is used as a medium,” Ariga said at a news conference after filing the lawsuit. “I don’t want (people) to equate this with the fact that I was in a pornographic film.”
Fanza, which has offered the videos to stream for many years, defended itself by claiming that it had signed a distribution deal with the rights holder of the content and was not involved with any contracts that were signed between the producers and performers. We have to say, this is a reasonable stance to take. The issue may ultimately lie with the rights holder (in this case, we suspect Okura Pictures) and we are curious why Ariga did not name them as a co-defendant in the suit. She did try to contact the director but was not successful.
Another factor not in her favor is that she no longer possesses the contracts for the films, which she signed three decades ago.
The suit is, in part, a test of performer’s rights. Ariga said she did not even first contact Fanza but went straight to the court in an attempt to clarify if it is within her legal rights to demand the removal of online content.
See the Japan Times for more details about the case.
