When A Studio 'Releases' A Model From An Exclusive Contract...

Is that basically their way of saying 'you think you can do this on your own, go ahead' ?

Its happened a few times in the past couple of years, Pierre Fitch comes to mind immediately, he made his name with the studio, decided to leave and now he's doing his own thing and, without meaning to cause offence, his name doesnt seem to have as much of a 'whack' to it now, unless surfers have already seen him in a title.

I just wondered if releasing a model from an exclusive contract, on the studios part, is basically their way of letting the talent realize they arent better off on their own.

Your thoughts?

Regards,

Lee

People seem to know about Pierre a lot more than they do about some of the Fratmen we've released. Generally, we contract guys for a certain amount of work over a certain amount of time. Once that's done, we'll either resign them or not.

The ones we haven't resigned are free to go off anywhere and work.. some have and some haven't.

Generally if we don't resign them it's not to prove anything to them, it's just that we dont' plan on making a series of movies with them, but we'll often ask if they're interested in one-off appearances.

Pierre seems to be doing just fine without them, so who knows.

Perhaps releasing a model from an "Exclusive" contract is just their way of avoiding having the model work for another studio in a "right to work state" and then having the thin facade of "Exclusivity" come crumbling down.

Exclusivity only works when people are dumb enough to believe that they can really be held to such contracts. Perhaps Pierre was smart enough to know that there was no way they could hold him to such a contract if he wanted to work somewhere else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TropixxxStudios

Exclusivity only works when people are dumb enough to believe that they can really be held to such contracts. Perhaps Pierre was smart enough to know that there was no way they could hold him to such a contract if he wanted to work somewhere else.

---

I am seeing Pierre Fitch everywhere.

When does over exposure lead to lack of affiliate income?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wnc

I am seeing Pierre Fitch everywhere.

When does over exposure lead to lack of affiliate income?

---

Thats a very good point, and I am not sure of the answer to that. I would agree that over exposure will damage your bottom line very quickly...but I don't know exactly where that line is.

There are a lot of models that come to mind when I think of over-exposure...and I am sure that being out there so much has really lessened their values.

Perhaps that is a great quesiton for Pierre himself to answer. I know he reads these forums.

Right to work has nothing to do with a contract. However, In America, A contract is binding to the agreements and one could be let out of the contract, or simply "buy" out of it.

Right to work is based on Union work - Meaning in Florida (a right to work state) You cannot Hire or Fire people based on Union Membership

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolKnights

Right to work has nothing to do with a contract. However, In America, A contract is binding to the agreements and one could be let out of the contract, or simply "buy" out of it.

Right to work is based on Union work - Meaning in Florida (a right to work state) You cannot Hire or Fire people based on Union Membership

---

Actually, right to work in Colorado means you can not be held to any contract (like a non-competition clause) etc that interferes with your right to work.

We have used a model before that was "Exclusive" to a major studio. Of course we had a lawyer advise us before we did so. The Studio protested, but it was quickly dropped.

Hollywood used to use a similar "Star Sytem" back in the Golden Age of Movies. If Hollywood can't keep a star Exclusive to their studios, then why would you expect that a porn company can?

Contracts are only valid if they are LEGAL...and not every contract written is legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TropixxxStudios

Actually, right to work in Colorado means you can not be held to any contract (like a non-competition clause) etc that interferes with your right to work.

We have used a model before that was "Exclusive" to a major studio. Of course we had a lawyer advise us before we did so. The Studio protested, but it was quickly dropped.

---

IdolKnights is correct; "Right to work" refers to compulsory union membership as a requirement to work at a given (unionized) place of business. What you're referring to is Colorado's statutes prohibiting enforcement of non-compete agreements except under limited circumstances.

Legal or not, trampling on some other studio's arrangements with its models is a great way to blackball yourself with said other studio and/or with others in the industry.

We always try to be respectful of other studios' models... if a model contacts us that we perceive might have a relationship (whether or not written or exclusive) with another studio, we, as a matter of courtesy, contact the studio and ask if it's OK to use the model. Most studios are delighted just to be asked and are happy to oblige, but if a studio objected, I seriously doubt we would use that model, whether or not there is exclusivity in place.

Also, the exclusivity arrangement is between the model and the studio. You, as the "interloper", wouldn't be party to an exclusivity agreement, so the studio would most likely go after the model for violating the agreement, and while you may have resources to rebuff threats from a studio, the model you're working with most likely does not, so you may be doing a big disservice to your model. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars to get to the point where a court will rule an exclusivity agreement unenforceable, and I suspect that very few models will have the money to defend a claim by a studio; look at the Brent Corrigan situation, for example.

As for enforceability, most states do allow enforcement of exclusivity or non-compete agreements, provided they are "reasonable". Colorado is one of a small handful of states that does limit noncompetes, but if a model makes an agreement with another studio in a state that does permit enforcement, the studio can most likely enforce the agreement if it was legal within the state where it was made.

Also, arguably, if a studio invested heavily in marketing a model as its exclusive performer and you diluted the value of that model, you might find yourself or your studio at the other end of a "tortious interference with prospective business advantage" claim from the other studio, particularly if you are admitting that you knew the model had an exclusivity arrangement with another studio and intentionally chose to disregard it. One thing I've learned... things like this are extremely specialized, and unless the legal advice you're getting is from an attorney with a specialty in entertainment business contract and/or employment law (both of which are specialties), the advice you're getting may not be very good.

All in all, there are plenty of models out there, and taking somebody else's exclusive model doesn't seem like something that is either good business or good karma.

Chip,

While I agree that it is generally a good practice to repsect others arrangments, there are always exceptions to every rule.

Without going into specifics, we did what we felt was best for all parties, and judging by how quickly the other studio backed down, I can only assume they didn't want light shed on their unethical business practices. We try not to use any models that we know have "been around" or are "exclusive" but this one particular situation we made an exception.

While there are reputable companies like yourself, you have to admit that there are just as many that prey upon ignorant models who have no clue what they are getting themselves into with certain contracts. I find it sad how many of the models we run into don't even keep copies of their contracts.

Anyway, my reply was not intended to start a debate about the ethics of using someone elses models, but rather as a hypothetical situation for why someone would be "released" from their exclusive contract.

- Michael

Glad to hear that... and yes, there are some extremely shady practices that go on out there.

What's really bad is when some of the agreements that I've seen are so poorly crafted (obviously not by an attorney) that you can't really even tell what the studio was trying to accomplish, or one that's so vague that the studio tries to use it as a "catch all" to get the model to do whatever they want.

I am still working on the "modeling facts" website I mentioned some months ago. The goal is to just put info about best practices out there, inform models about what is and is not standard within the industry, and help them to make wise decisions. As soon as we have some time to do a little design work for it, we should have a draft version of it up, and I hope that studios that agree with what we've written will point prospective models to it both to reniforce the idea that there are plenty of "good guys" out there as well to inform models so they can avoid unpleasant or unethical situations.

I see some people here don't know what they are really talking about LOL

I only worked for studio's to build my self a name so I would do good when I would be on my own .. and of course know I'm on my own and I can tell you with out building a name it's hard to do everything on your own .. Right now the reason Also I left all studio's is because I'm really doing amazing with my site I have a blog and site and many other websites and I also now have my own dvd production company I shoot 2 dvd's and pornteam is working on helping me with the store and all and Working on something with aebn to have my dvd's on demand soon.. .. Well for those who think I'm not doing good you are all wrong... I have a office and all .. I travel all year long to promote my self also :)

Pierre is awesome! He's always working on a new project and I think his name is strong. With release models I really don't know about that. We just shoot some exclusive content but do not keep the models exclusive to us.

Go Ahead Tell them Pierre .. :)

U should watch out this guy ... cauz with its upcoming sites chats blog and so on ... He could probably teach you a lot :)


I luv u fitch ;)
Matt

And people don'y miss our upcoming 2 new sites tomorrow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pierrefitch

I only worked for studio's to build my self a name so I would do good when I would be on my own

---

Interesting, do you think a lot of exclusive models use the studios in this way to further their own interests while being paid by the studios for work? Also, out of interest, what would have happened if the studio you worked for didnt or woldnt release you from your contract? Presumably you had a backup plan in place in the event this happened?

Quote:

---

Right now the reason Also I left all studio's is because I'm really doing amazing with my site I have a blog and site and many other websites

---

But by not having a well-known studio promoting your name any longer, do you think that residual traffic to your sites will drop (because you are no longer heavily promoted by the studios) or do you beleive that you'll always have recognition with DVD buyers which will lead them to your site?

Quote:

---

I also now have my own dvd production company I shoot 2 dvd's and pornteam is working on helping me with the store and all and Working on something with aebn to have my dvd's on demand soon

---

Thats interesting too, do you feel that you will be able to have as much of a marketing push as the large studios you worked in terms of continuing your name branding in the DVD market place? I mean sure, right now your name might be known as some of the titles you appeared in are relatively new but what about 6-12 months down the line, do you think you'll be effective in promoting yourself like the large studios with a huge budget did?

Glad to hear you are doing well, as i said originally, didnt mean any offence by mentioning your name, you were just the first person who sprang to mind hehe

Regards,

Lee

as far as I'm concerned....

exclusive contracts are a bunch of crap

studios like to use this type of terminology (a hold over from the REAL days of Hollywood) in order to tie somebody down - mostly, so that a "discovery" doesn't end up working for the competition - it also makes the studios seem as if they are "big time hollywood studios" (which they aren't) - this is porn...

in general - this promises to lock someone in at a specific rate, for a specific number of shoots and over a specific time period

problem is... models sneak around and studios sneak around - shooting content and "shelving it" for later - or whatever

we've lost several models to "big" studios - we have found that the "big" studio contracts were basically making these guys unavailable for bareback work - sometimes, as punishment for working in bareback....

we advise our guys not to sign "exclusivity contracts" with studios - including ours - besides, variety is the spice of life

I think models get released for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes the contracts are only for a year, just as a way for a studio to say, "We discovered this person" before sending them on their way. Sometimes it's a way to keep talent all to themselves so that they have their own stable of performers. That's just good branding. Sometimes the models realize they don't want to work for only one company and can do better on their own. Sometimes it's just time for companies and models to part ways. I don't think it boils down to one reason, of course.

There's nothing wrong with releasing models from exclusive contracts when they expire. It's when they release the "Lifetime exclusives" that things really look bad. Falcon is the only one that does that, though. None of the other studios do the "lifetime exclusive" thing. That's pretty dumb, if you ask me. There's no need for it. Why would any porn star in his right mind agree to work for only one company for the rest of his porn career? Really bad decision.