from another forum.....


To whom it may concern,

Recently there have been two articles in the adult press trade publication – X- Biz, entitled ‘Balancing Talent Agents, Producers, and Performers ‘ by the attorney Michael Fattorosi who is fond of writing these and similar articles in the adult press.

http://www.xbiz.com/articles/104087/fattorosi

http://www.xbizworld.com/digital/online/

Before continuing on, the reader should know that this writer, is not an attorney and equally point out that Mr Fattorosi is, and further that he is neither a Talent Agent, Producer nor a Performer.

A knowledgeable person on these subjects or indeed merely a reader with reasonable intelligence would recognize the prejudice with which these articles are written. And why would that be, is the question that would then leap forward into the readers mind?

Simply explained really, – because Mr Fattorosi seeks to find new clients (performers mostly, but could be agencies) using whom – he will attempt to create fissures and conflicts and thereafter to exploit any weaknesses, in the relationship between, talent agents, producers and performers. Such attorneys are often referred to as ambulance chasers, except in this case it is more sinister really than that. Rather than actually appearing or seeking to appear at the scene of the accident – in this case one is inducing the accident to occur in the first place.

Mr Fattorosi has been hired by the talent agency Metro Talent who together, (though one might speculate it as at the behest of Mr Fattorosi) seek to overturn the long time and universally accepted practice of ‘production damage fees’. Metro Talent has announced on the advice of Mr Fattorosi that they will not be administrating the process of ‘production damage fees’, in either direction , meaning the producer cannot collect any monies in compensation for their talents ‘failure to appear’ and equally their talent cannot collect any monies if a producer / employer enacts a short notice cancelation causing a day or days loss of work that rarely can be replaced.

One can almost hear the collective gasp of despair, yes indeed reader, for though this industry currently faces colossal challenges of a very varied manner, Cal – Osha, LA County Dept Of Health, Aids Health Care Foundation, Content piracy, Hippa Law, Tube Sites, Federal Obscenity Task Force (God Bless you John Stagliano a brave man and true champion of our industry), and on and on - we have within us, a man who would seek to cause division and harm to us, not to remedy any actual wrong doing from one party to another, but rather to ‘feather his own nest’ caring not one iota what harm may be caused to the wider industry along the way.

To whit – one very real and clear example, the subject and substance of much of the two articles, ‘ kill fees’ or as we more commonly refer to them ‘production damage fees’ or ‘cancellation fees’. Be under no illusion reader why, Mr Fattorisi pointedly chooses to use the term ‘kill fee’ rather than the commonly used term ‘production damage fee’ or ‘cancellation fee’ , for it is because he well knows and is correct that – no ‘kill fees’ or ‘punitive fees’ may be charged to a performer by a producer or an agency for a failure to complete or failure to appear, at a work assignment and the term itself is incendiary, and thus leads the reader down a path that is not necessarily trodden.

To use a highway analogy – if one stated that the car was speeding down the highway and was pulled over by the Highway Patrol, the reader immediately assumes then, that an infraction has taken place, but rather, if one writes that the car was pulled over for a moving violation no such assumption is made, nor is the reader led to believe that the driver is necessarily at fault for anything.

– And thus the truth is,

It is permissible for a performer to be charged a fee, to cover some or all of a producers loss caused by the talents failure to appear, or in other ways that a performer causes damage and financial loss to that producer, so long as the performer knew that such a fee might and could be levied in such circumstance, and agreed to it, at the time of the employment work offer being accepted by the performer.

It is equally permissible for the performer to demand and the producer to be required to pay a fee to the performer for a short notice cancellation of a scheduled work assignment causing financial loss to the performer as a result, providing both are knowledgeable of and in agreement to such arrangement at the time of the employment offer being made and accepted.

It works both ways and it works both ways well, because it creates the incentive on both sides – not to cancel, not to cause damage to each other, and therefore to be productive, be well prepared and professional.

So what then has Mr Fattorisi brought before the DLSE (Division of Labor and Standards Enforcement) and what result would it have if his petition in this matter should prevail?

Mr Fattorosi has brought an action that is currently presented before the Labor Commissioner – (DLSE), involving this very issue of the ‘kill fee’ or ‘production damage fee’. Now the agency in question against whom his complaint has been brought, are ably defended by a well known, experienced and respected law firm, well practiced in the realm of working with clients from the ‘adult ‘ world and they are most confident that they shall prevail in successfully defending their client agency from this action.

However, he has made the case that the agency in question improperly facilitated the payment of a ‘production damage fee’ from a model to the hiring production company when the model failed to appear for a scheduled work assignment, causing a loss to the employing producer. Mr Fattorosi takes the position that the producer may seek to recover such loss as may have been incurred by the models failure to appear but that they can only do so directly against the model and that therefore the agency representing the model erred in its facilitation and administration of the payment of such fee from model to producer.

(As previously stated this is very much disputed both by the agency involved and by counsel representing this agency) and for the sake of all agents, models and producers we hope that Mr Fattorosi shall not prevail in this case for what then would be the result if he did?

Well in the first instance Mr Fattorosi does not find it sufficient that this matter would be found severable, in other words, if these fees are ruled as impermissible then they should be ordered repaid and that would be the end of the matter and otherwise all other business between agent, talent and producer shall remain the same, - Oh no – he would have it be that, in such case, the entire contract would be thrown out and all commissions derived from the work procured by the agent, (entirely lawfully at the time,) on behalf of the Model should be repaid.

And therefore in such case – the entire, universally accepted custom and practice of mutually agreed production damage / cancellation fees that has long been in place be discontinued.

Need the writer say more as to the chaos and harm that would ensue if talent and producers alike could cancel at whim, back and forth with no recourse whatsoever, or more dangerously for the performers probably, the following,

Talent please read carefully,

The standardization of the production damage fee – makes a mutual agreement between producer and talent that limits a performers liability of cost to no more than $200 typically, for a ‘failure to appear’. If this was no longer the case then producers may go after performers for the full cost of their loss which often times can run into the thousands of dollars, - And they would then do so through the courts and not through the administration of the agencies who represent the talent. Can you imagine the cost and the time involved in that?

And would they not feel it necessary to do so, if that were now their only recourse, at least in a few instances perhaps, to teach a lesson that the productions could not be repeatedly impaired and damaged by repeated ‘failures to appear’?

And if in such case then, that this produced a barrage of litigation back and forth between producers, agents and talent, - can you imagine who you might find in the middle of all that and who might be served very well by inducing a plethora of suits such as that? The writer suggests you might find, one Mr Michael Fattorosi.

There is an old saying – “ keep your friends close and your enemies closer”. Dear readers, be careful which is which, and which of those it is, that lie amongst us, for one may be clothed as the other.

The agencies named below feel similarly and conglomerated to respond with this article to the writings of Mr Fattorosi – we may and shall continue to respond similarly on other subjects and to future articles as may appear from him.

One should remember that it is absolutely not the case that merely because one is an attorney that one speaks accurately, knowledgably and truthfully about the professions, customs and practices nor the laws that govern them, in this large industry of ours. Put ten attorneys in a room and ask them a question – you will undoubtedly get ten different answers we warrant.



Shy Love @ ATM LA

Derek Hay @ LADirect Models

September Dawn @ A-List Talent

Sandra McCarthy @ OC Modeling