Comments on: Another agent caught scamming girls with fake fees ** UPDATED

By: spawn777

spawn777 — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 19:39:12 +0000

You may want to report that there has been some controversy, but maybe don’t “believe” either side without independent verification. Most of the time, the “bad guys” have been on the one side, making the price you pay for believing the girls a non-factor. With multiple reporters these days, and perhaps a growing audience, perhaps MikeSouth.com needs a vetting policy and a short time to respond from accused violators.

By: Kelli

Kelli — Sun, 05 Nov 2017 11:33:17 +0000

When a performer says one thing, the agent says another, just who should be believed?

Should we not publish stories if the agent calls the girl a liar and she calls the agent a liar?

I mean who should be believed? If a girl says she was charged $100, I can’t help but think that she knows what she speaks of. It really is a he said/she said kind of thing. I mean let’s be real, you know how many times an agent swears up and down something a performer said wasn’t true?

I have in my possession a copy of a police report in regards to an agent in Florida. It’s a very detailed report of abuse. If the agent in question says he didn’t do any of those things, should we just assume he’s telling the truth just because the agent says the girl is a liar?

Why are we all so quick to discount anything a performer says as a lie? How many performers said that Tony T was abusive to them on set and got ignored?

How many performers reported problems with Ron Jeremy and James Deen and the countless others and got ignored?

I’m not saying that no porn star lies. Obviously, some do. But why do we as an industry so quickly assume that EVERY performer lies, every time? I can’t recall a single time anyone has ever believed a single performer when she came out with some story. Not Stoya, not Joanna Angel, not Nikki Benz, not Tori Black, not Mckenzee Miles. I could go on but you’ve been around long enough to know what I mean.

We are just always so quick to believe the girl is a liar and for some reason always seem to give these agents and producers get a free pass?

But to be clear, in this specific case, I’m not saying the girl is lying. I’m not saying that the guy from Motley Models is a liar.

I’m saying this was her story, that is his story. Believe what you want. Maybe she did accidentally get confused. Maybe she didn’t. All I can do is present both sides. You can decide to believe whoever you want, that’s your choice.

By: DeanCapture

DeanCapture — Sun, 05 Nov 2017 00:40:18 +0000

With all due respect, these pictures were not shot on a cell phone. They were shot on a Nikon D5100 camera. I know this because I downloaded one of the pics and looked at the EXIF info attached to the picture. It was also shot at 31mm, F5 @ 1/100 of a second according to the EXIF info. Those settings are not possible on a cell phone.

The quality of the pictures are just fine for a producers needs. I much prefer this kind of “simple” casting photo compared to the overly photoshopped “glam” picture that barely looks like the same girl when she walks in the door. I can tell you a hundred horror stories of being on-set when the performer arrives and I’m thinking this is the wrong girl because she looked nothing like her casting photo. Overly photoshopped casting pictures does a disservice to producers & directors.

Lastly I’m extremely disappointed to see this type of public attack against any agency without the proper vetting being done first.

By: mharris127

mharris127 — Sun, 05 Nov 2017 00:06:55 +0000

Assuming Motley’s representative is being truthful I guess a few cell phone pics for free isn’t a rip-off. However, I hope they are using more professionally taken pics for their models as soon as possible after they join the roster. I can see temporary pics taken with whatever is handy when a girl gets into town for her first week of work but if I were a porn chickie I would want a professional set of pics on the agent’s site — even if I had to pay for them out of my pocket.

By: Kelli

Kelli — Sat, 04 Nov 2017 23:17:23 +0000

I’m honestly glad to hear this story turned out to be wrong, that the girl was just confused. I would hate to think that any agent was out there charging a model for cell phone pics.

By: mharris127

mharris127 — Sat, 04 Nov 2017 13:27:23 +0000

What in the hell is that agency owner thinking? I don’t intend any offense to Ms. Ballerini but you will also notice that Ms. Jennings has professionally done make-up and some professional coaching as to what positions to put herself in for her pictures. Ms. Ballerini looks like she walked out of bed that morning, put on minimal make-up and her photographer didn’t have a MUA on site to do her make-up professionally. The positioning is also reminiscent of someone taking mugshots of someone under arrest at LA County Jail for some small-time misdemeanor (before someone starts in on that comment I am NOT claiming Ms. Ballerini has a criminal record). Other than make-up I can do better right in my home with camera equipment I already own (although some light boxes would help) and I am not a professional photographer, I would not claim to be qualified to take professional photos for a porn agency. If Ms. Ballerini’s pictures were really taken with a cell phone camera (they appear to be quite shitty and probably not that effective at bringing in jobs for her) and she was charged $100 for that “service”, her agent needs to have his agency license and Max Hardcore’s fist shoved up his ass without lube! Hell, maybe he needs the (pre-prison) full Max Hardcore treatment. Give me a fucking break, Motley Models owner-idiots!!!!!

By: AINews

AINews — Sat, 04 Nov 2017 05:13:36 +0000

A good agent will invest in the pictures, give a copy to the girl to use, and send them out without charging the girl. Why take a girl on board if you don’t think you can get a return on your investment of the cost of the pictures?

By: Karmafan

Karmafan — Sat, 04 Nov 2017 02:07:12 +0000

Motley Models seems to be involved in some stink every month or two.