I checked and spoke to Assets, they are legitimate, I offered to work with Kerri Nicole, when I called they knew who she was and asked me the type of photo I was planning on taking and the time I would take them. Although when Kerri first told me about them I was a bit surprised too, as she kindly came to the site and sent an email asking if people were interested of taking her pictures. Nothing wrong with that so far. But somehow I still dont know where Assets comes in the equation. As you all seen from Kerri's portfolio, no pictures are pro or semi pro so I was wondering if this agency was waiting for her to deploy more kinda pro photos so they in turn could use them to launch her further.

Looking forward working with the girl Ii am sure it will be fun.

Guy

Guy

I really dont understand this approach either.....

 Like if I was an agency I would want the best images of a model possible from day one.  I never knew this was the 'generic' practised by many here.

I would be interesting to see how many, (not models) but agencies or both,  credit the photographer who took the image when it is on the site for promotional use. 

Art

I think Art has summed it up quite well in his initial reply, but here's another very important factor to consider, that nobody has yet mentioned.

Put yourself in the agencies shoes. Most reputable agencies will not allow their models to work independently (at least not without telling them) for a number of reasons, one of the most important of which is exclusivity!

Supposing an agency has just hired arranged for several models to do a fashion shoot for a big designer and one of the images is to appear on the cover of a major fashion magazine. Then the model that's going to appear on that cover, gets another independent assignment and by some twist of fate, appears on the cover of a different magazine. Can you imagine just how pissed off the first client (and the agency) is going to be!

Personally, if I hear that a model is signed to an agency, I proceed with caution. Working independently with a model that's signed to an agency can have all sorts of repercussions. I once helped a new model get signed up to a Cork agency and once she got signed up she told me that as part of her contract she was not allowed to do independent work but would work with me as a favour for helping to get her signed up, provided the images we produced weren't going to be published anywhere. This ultimately worked in her favour as she got more images for her portfolio whilst not getting her into "trouble".

I would have thought that Assets, being one of the bigger agencies in Ireland, would have a stricter policy on this, but I guess that if they're not using a particular model that much, perhaps they take a more relaxed approach. 

- Thorsten. 

Much of what you say is true. However, ultimately it comes down to what is in the contract between the model and the agency.

Alot of girls which are signed to agencies be it Assets or any of the others do not get any work off them. That's just the way it is, some girls get a lot of work, and some do not.

 I for example, would NEVER book a model who is with an agency, directly.

Even if I only find out afterwards that she is with an agency, if its a paid shoot I will always make sure it goes through her agents. That is from my point of view though because I don't want piss off any agencies by trying to book their girls directly (which I could do no problem as I know so many of the models personally) The agency will find out at the end anyway (esp when I blog about it so there are no secrets with me!!)

From a models point of view though it seems kinda differerent, because if they are with an agency that doesnt get them any work, then why should they give their agent 15% of the money they earn on jobs they get themselves?? Well that's the way it is if you are under contract. If you are not, well it's up to you and your relationship with your agent.

i think alot of the girls that join agencies such as assets, morgan, compton etc are commerical models and so they wouldnt get as much work as the other models that they have. i know for assets that they have about 10 models that they use for everything and that they have so many commerical girls on there books, so thats why i think when some of the girls have joined to these agencies they should look for there own work too as being a commerical model with them you only get work every now and then. 

in my opinion i wouldnt want an agency to take 15 % of the work i did especially if i was the one getting out there and getting booked. but thats just me!!

I know from having a few friends working as booking agents for the larger agencies in the North that this is a new thing agencies are doing.

Years ago, you were exclusive, you couldn't work with a photographer off your own back and if you did and your image ended up on something commercial, the agency would take him/her to court and win (as happened recently). BUT that was because they paid to build your portfolio and initial images for you because they had small select numbers who they knew they'd make money out of.

Nowadays, agencies take on hundreds of girls, yet make significant money from only a few. They allow you to work independently because they get your images for free rather than "investing" in you. It's easier for them to do this now as there's a bigger scene, more accessible to newcomers and it's money-saving after all.

This is why photographers still approach agency girls with caution as the legal loopholes used to be quite stringent. I don't agree with it all these days as it's just scrooge-agencies who take you on and then leave you with a few promotional (not modelling) jobs a year if you're lucky, because they're too busy promoting Miss So-and-So or their latest find.

I also don't think having an agency makes you any more professional as many will take you on without an interview or reference. How many regular jobs would hire someone on that basis? I used to site MacKenzie Model Management for work in England but that's because glamour images are much more easily sold, even amateur ones, and so once I signed my contract, if I needed a model release, the job had to go through them. But they got me work so I didn't mind, and they let me be independent in Ireland which suited me.

I won't hide it though - I was name dropping and why not - not many girls from Ireland get commercial glamour work in England so it was an achievement. As for the agencies here, a simple view of their websites (which only show the more popular faces) will tell you straight away they're over-run which is really just a sign that it costs them nothing to sign you and yet you've to do all the promoting of your name yourself, but hey if you make it famous, they own your a** lol

I don't get it?! But whatever floats your boat....

Well for me when i see someone signed up with an Agency ill more then likely not use them for fear of getting to hassle with the  Agency, who wants that kind of drama!?

As for name droping , it does nothing for me in the same respect that its your work that will show how good you are.

I just feel that when a girl mentions an Agency my alram bells ring and i step away carefully.  Sorry i just dont need the hassle of getting in between a Agency and its "Girl"

PB