Modeling Agency News: American Modeling Industry Headlines

"Four of the five Backstreet Boys, an Orlando-bred musical group with platinum records in 37 countries, have slapped a $10 million fraud lawsuit against their personal manager, prominent local businessman Louis J. Pearlman. At the heart of the suit is the allegation that Pearlman played Svengali to the boys' Trilby, bringing them worldwide fame--then pocketing $10 million of the singers' earnings in a six-year period ending in 1998. During that same period, the federal suit alleges, Pearlman and his associates doled out less than $300,000 to the international stars."¹

"The fifth member of the group, Nick Carter, decided not to join in the suit. However, there's no hint of any happy ending in the 70-page, 20-count suit, which is filled with acrimonious allegations. For example, the suit alleges the young singers, whose "soul music" has been a hit with preteen girls in countries around the world, were duped by Pearlman into signing multiple contracts without being told how much Pearlman and his associates would be earning in fees. Attorneys for the boys cite as evidence an exclusive recording contract the boys still have with Trans-Continental Records Inc.--a Pearlman-directed company--in which the singers were unaware they had "agreed" in the contract to pay Trans-Continental 43 percent of their net income."²

"Topping off the complaint is a charge that Pearlman has violated a state statute covering regulation of professions and occupations by failing to register either as a professional talent agency or talent agent--even though he secured bookings and other employment for the group. The suit seeks to void all contracts the Backstreet Boys signed with Pearlman and his associates since Sept.17, 1993."³

1. Alex Finkelstein, "Backstreet Boys: Local manager milked millions," Orlando Business Journal, Sept. 11, 1998.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

Modeling Agencies

"A lot of ordinary folk are convinced that they too can become a star--enter modeling agencies. Not all of them--there are many legitimate businesses that scout and develop talent but there are others that will make promises to just about anybody. You can end up paying anywhere from $300 to $1200 for pictures you can't use, or seminars and classes that teach you nothing. Everything the agency offers you is going to cost you more money."¹

"If you are thinking of going to a modeling agency research it first. Make sure it has been in the business for a few years. Check several agencies and compare prices and promises. Never pay the agency for photos--pay the photographer. Make sure the agency can prove it has working models. Verify who the client is before going to auditions. Verify the credentials of teachers for courses."²

Modeling come-ons that leave your kid in the lurch

"In several states, DuPont Model Management charged thousands of would-be models $395 apiece for photos--until a federal court closed the company down, fined its owner $525,640, and sentenced him to 37 months in jail."¹

1. "Modeling come-ons that leave your kid in the lurch," Kiplinger's Personal Finance, June 1994.

David Du Pont Held in Contempt of Court for Violating Previous Court Order

"A federal court has found David L. du Pont in civil contempt after finding that he operated a new modeling agency business in Chicago, called the Model & Talent Directory, in violation of a permanent injunction the court had issued against him on Jan. 24, 1992 at the request of the Federal Trade Commission. The permanent injunction followed FTC charges that du Pont misrepresented the employment assistance and opportunities he offered consumers, and falsely stated that his principal source of income was from commissions on fees paid by clients. The contempt order entered by Judge Norma L. Shapiro on July 15, permanently bans du Pont from engaging in the offering, marketing, or sale of modeling, acting or employment-related goods or services. The order also requires du Pont to pay to the FTC within 45 days all money obtained through the operation of the Model & Talent Directory for redress to consumers. The defendant also is ordered to pay the FTC reasonable attorney's fees in connection with this case. The order further provides that if du Pont fails to comply with the provisions of the order, the court will order that he be held in custody pending his compliance, and the court will hold a hearing to determine whether du Pont should be held in criminal contempt."¹

"This is the second time du Pont has been held in contempt in connection with this case. On Dec. 2, 1991, upon finding that du Pont operated three new businesses in violation of the preliminary injunction--Metro Model Management, Moda Model Management, and the Casting Directory--the court held du Pont in civil contempt. In the contempt order being announced today, the judge found that "Mr. du Pont has proved unwilling or unable to engage or participate in the modeling business in anything other than a misleading way." The FTC's petition seeking the contempt order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The judge signed the order holding du Pont in contempt on July 15, and it was entered the same day."²

1. "David Du Pont Held in Contempt of Court for Violating Previous Court Order," FTC, July 20, 1992.
2. Ibid.

David Du Pont Found Liable in Modeling Agency Scam

"A federal court has upheld Federal Trade Commission charges against Dupont Model Management, Inc., and its president David L. du Pont, finding that they misrepresented the employment assistance and opportunities Dupont offered consumers, and misrepresented its principal source of income. In fact, Dupont did not make any significant effort to promote models, and rarely, if ever, obtained modeling employment for customers, according to the judge's findings. The court also found that the defendants derived almost all their income from the sale of photographs that Dupont employees told consumers they must have in order for the agency to promote them to clients."¹

"Judge Norma L. Shapiro entered a judgment of $2,343,506 against du Pont, and both defendants are liable. Funds collected on the judgment will be used for consumer redress. Judge Shapiro also issued a permanent injunction prohibiting du Pont from, among other things, making any misrepresentation, in connection with any employment, modeling, acting-related or talent-related goods or services he markets or sells, regarding the nature of his business, the source of its income, or the assistance it provides consumers in obtaining work. Further, he must clearly and conspicuously disclose to all prospective customers of these goods or services any business or financial relationship he has with a photographer or other supplier of any good or service. According to Judge Shapiro's findings, "it is not common practice in the industry for an agency to charge the model for the photographs or receive a payment or commission from the photographer selected." The judgment and permanent injunction stem from a December 1990 FTC complaint alleging that du Pont and his firm, operating under different names in at least eight cities, falsely claimed that Dupont was a modeling agency that would place consumers in jobs as professional models."²

1. "David Du Pont Found Liable in Modeling Agency Scam," FTC, Jan. 31, 1992.
2. Ibid.

Tinsel or Sham: A close-up on Atlanta's Talent Agency Scene

"Some of the most common scams involve agents convincing wannabe actors that the key to success lies in signing up for acting or modeling classes through the agency or going t o the agent's exclusive photographer for a complete portfolio of pictures. Knowledgeable agents stress that if an agent asks for money for any of these necessary services, it's time to walk away."¹

"Photographer Brian Dougherty, who is well-known for his head shots of area talent, says that he's never seen a legitimate talent agency advertise in the newspaper. "They usually have more talent than they can find work for," he explains."²

1. Allen Rabinowitz, "Tinsel or Sham: A close-up on Atlanta's Talent Agency Scene," Oz, July 1994.
2. Ibid.

Latest News | 44 | 43 | 42 | 41 | 40 | 39 | 38 | 37 | 36 | 35 | 34 | 33 | 32 | 31 | 30 | 29 | 28 | 27 | 26 | 25 | 24 | 23 | 22 | 21 | 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Modeling Agency Complaints