Artist: Porn co. used ‘nearly every room’ in my home

bostonherald com 1 min read

Owner was unaware pornography was being shot on property

An artist says pornographers who rented her Martha’s Vineyard home used “nearly every room” to make smutty videos — unbeknownst to her — violating the lease agreement, according to a federal lawsuit she filed this week.

After buying a DVD from the production, the homeowner, Leah Bassett, compiled a list of the places where the company filmed: “Her bedrooms, her living room, her family room sofas, her stairway, atop her dining room table, her bathroom, her basement, atop her laundry room appliances, etc.,” the complaint states.

The production company even failed to furnish their own sheets, and used her good pillows during filming.

“It became clear that they deliberately used her linens and bedspreads, including the decorative bedroom pillows hand sewn/designed by Ms. Bassett,” her lawsuit states.

Bassett said that “Schoolboy Fantasies 2” and “His Son’s Best Friend Vol. 1” are just two of as many as 24 films shot at her home in 2015, according to the suit.

Bassett is suing Mile High Distribution Inc., as well as the man who rented the home and the woman who directed the films.

Stephen A. Roach, the Boston lawyer defending Mile High, told the Herald last night that this is a “landlord-tenant dispute.”

“This matter arose out of a basic landlord-tenant dispute. The plaintiff was upset about unpaid rent from someone other than Mile High and my other clients,” Roach said. “The allegations are unfounded.”

Among the 10 counts of her lawsuit, one is a copyright complaint, stating that the movies use certain pieces of her artwork that are protected by copyright, without her permission. Bassett was able to identify 10 of her pieces featured prominently, or in the background of scenes, and took still pictures as evidence. She has since stopped looking, but fears all 53 of her works of art are featured in the pornography, the lawsuit states.

“It remains very painful and upsetting emotionally for Ms. Bassett to watch closely or repeatedly the videos,” her suit states.

"CLOSELY OR REPEATEDLY"? This lady needs to get over it. What does she think her friends will say "oh that's so and so's piece of art"?

REALLY!!!

Is this like banning guns in a rental?

Don't furnish rentals, especially with Grandma's collectibles.

Why does the owner care?

Interesting. I'm curious what the "10 counts" of the lawsuit are.

She may have an argument regarding the copyrighted works. There is precedent for this. When an art piece appeared in the movie "The Devil's Advocate" without a license, they had to actually blur/modify it digitally for the DVD release because they refused to pay the artist.

Then that happened again with the Titanic re-release a few years ago.

So, there is definitely past situations where this was a valid argument. But, it MAY only apply to more "recognized" works of art. I dunno.

I'm curious -- which lease clauses would this violate, if any, for some of you? I'm not even sure if it violates a "not running a business out of the unit" sort of clause if they were just filming in it.

- John...

Also -- she must rent the place furnished, right?

I hate to break it to her -- but even if porn is NOT filmed in your place -- if you rent a place and include the bedsheets and pillows, then you better assume that people have had sex on them. Filmed or not! :)

- John...

John... it probably falls somewhere under the "pest/rodent removal" clause. If not at the onset, then certainly after the credits roll.

AllyM: I'm honestly not sure if you are making a joke or being serious (and, if so, then you are very, very confused or, at least, poorly informed).

- John...

Martha's Vineyard? Pretty nice. I bet the owner has more money than the production people.

She has a case for copyright art since that art was used to earn money without her permission. Although I'd have to assume there was a lot going on in the foreground to distract from the background pictures. Also I don't think the audience is there to appreciate artwork.

If her lease stated that the rental can't be used for business or income producing activities she might have another case.

For the sake of the conversation: if her lease states no business use, what can she sue for other than eviction? I'm guess nothing. Artwork being a different story.

NE: I agree with you -- that is why I was curious what the TEN counts were. :)

Mike: To each their own, but just so you know, the two movies mentioned by name are actually gay porn. So, if you're into that, feel free to watch closely. :)

Personally, my GUESS is that THAT is the real issue here. She didn't like that GAY porn was filmed in her home maybe. And "all over her sheets and pillows" and such. But, again, that's just my guess of what is really going on here.

- John...

The plaintiff has been damaged after "closely and repeatedly" viewing the porn movies. Uh, ok.

Sounds about like the cops in Orange County, CA, who took two years and about 30 visits to a suspected whorehouse before busting it. They said they had to confirm beyond a doubt illicet sex was going on. LOL

"Personally, my GUESS is that THAT is the real issue here. She didn't like that GAY porn was filmed in her home maybe."

Yeah, I think you might be right John...

Haha!

If we knew what was happening inside our rentals...most LLs could not sleep!

Ever think about the action your hotel bed has seen?

Me? (Jokingly) I’d raise the rent and advertise “Stay where the movie _____ was filmed!”

Some clever entreprenuers here would call up the other movie makers and offer this gorgeous home at a high price.

Haha Brad, "Stay here and you may end up a star!"

oh puleeze is there NOTHING people will not whine about? copyright? non-starter. the art was an incidental element and SURELY not the reason the "art patrons" were enjoying their porn. she needs to demonstrate damages...not seeing them.

To be fair, I don't think the background art in Titanic nor The Devil's Advocate were anything other than "incidental" and yet both of those cases went in favor of the artist. And I also don't think people enjoyed those movies any more or less because of that art. I don't think either of those artists experienced any real-world damages for them being in the movies either. But, yet, the artists won.

I agree with what you are saying -- I'm just not sure the courts would also.

I'd really like to see her other 9 counts though. They must go down-hill from there -- and that wasn't much to begin with! :)

- John...