JSouthworth wrote:
Possibly, but then why would they pay to view nudes and sexy pictures on OF when they can find them here, and on many other sites for free?

There are a lot of reasons. Think about someone who likes the work of a particular Hollywood actor and runs to the theater every time one of their movies come out. It's called being a fan. Fans support the people they like.

You're a guy - you should know that tastes are very specific. Some people find what they like and don't need to look at thousands of different women to get their rocks off.

And sure, there are sites where you can view x-rated stuff for free, but most of it is pirated and the sites are full of malware. OF, and the other sites just like it, verifies creators and it's a stable, safe site. You know you are supporting the person who actually created the content. That matters to a whole lot of people.

Porn is an almost 100 billion dollar industry globally. So yes, people are paying to see naughty stuff.

The Other Place wrote:
Here is the profile of a model who was active on MM today.  Looking at her portfolio, one can see that she is exceptionally beautiful and that she has some modeling chops.  However, none of the photos are more recent than 2012.

Full disclosure I didn't click the link, because I have thoughts about using a third party to make a point about how they conduct their own business without informing them I'm doing so.

That said, obviously if the model is active and I was interested I would message them with an offer for a possible collaboration and a request for some updated images. I would then determine my course of action predicated upon their response, or lack there of. It's really not that difficult at all.

The Other Place wrote:
I don't think that, and I never said that OF content should be reviewed for casting.

AlaskanSeaAdventure wrote:
Ha ha ha....you ACTUALLY did say that.

The Other Place wrote:
Not sure if you fully comprehended my statement which you quoted:
"If the work that I need to see to make a hiring decision is in only another location than Model Mayhem (or behind a cut/paywall), then I am forced to go there if I want to see that model's/crew-member's work."

Exactly where in my passage that you quoted above do I state that "OF content should be reviewed for casting?"

Please bold/highlight that particular line.  Thanks!

AlaskanSeaAdventure wrote:
Again...you keep using the words "FORCED".  You are NOT forced to go to OnlyFans.  It's a suggestion.  How can you not understand that simple concept.  You are the one who keeps using the words FORCED, not anyone else.

You keep ignoring the crucial qualifying phrase, "If the work that one needs to see to make a hiring decision is in only another location than Model Mayhem..."

You yourself repeatedly used a similar phrase to convey that you *HAVE* to (translation: are *FORCED* to) go to the other site to see the pertinent work:

AlaskanSeaAdventure wrote:
You want to hire talent?  You have to go where talent is.
[snip]
You want a model based upon their looks and you want to see what their recent stuff is, then you have to go where that is.

-----

AlaskanSeaAdventure wrote:
If YOU or a photographer WANT to see their recent work, then you are FREE to go to OnlyFans.

Well, according to your previous statements, you HAVE to go to the other website:

AlaskanSeaAdventure wrote:
You want to hire talent?  You have to go where talent is.
[snip]
You want a model based upon their looks and you want to see what their recent stuff is, then you have to go where that is.

-----

AlaskanSeaAdventure wrote:
You see. You use the FORCED word again.  It's like a model saying, hey I was recently published in Playboy Magazine.  If you want to see that work are you now FORCED to go buy a subscription of Playboy?  Nope.  You can simply buy one if you WANT to, but there is no FORCE involved.

So, you are FORCED to buy one -- if you want to see that work.

AlaskanSeaAdventure wrote:
How is their recent work actually relevant?

It primarily applies to on-camera talent and not crew.

It would be just a little problematic for me (and for my client) if a model shows up on set not looking at all like the years old pictures he/she posted.  That has happened to me and to many others.  You don't want that, the client doesn't want that, and the model usually doesn't want that after the first time it happens.

AlaskanSeaAdventure wrote:
When I look around for a model to shoot, I don't necessarily look for their most recent work.  I look at all of it.  If they have an instagram account, since I have one, I will peruse it.  If the account is blocked, I just simply ignore that fact and make a decision based upon what I see. 

The Model is free to make his/her choice as to where they post their stuff.  If you are not happy with that, simply move on and find someone else.  Not sure how that's such a hard thing to do and grasp.

I don't have an OF account.  I could care less if they have one.  To me, I am only interested in my work at that point.  How can they (the model) contribute to my work.  I will post up credit pictures on MM in hopes they will acknowledge the work done.  But again, nobody is pointing a gun to your head demanding you pay up to see their work.  Models post their stuff anywhere and everywhere.  That's THEIR choice as to where they post. 

I have been looking at pages of models in my area.  Most don't seem to interested in posting their work here anymore.  Probably because they want to avoid people such as you.  Or perhaps they feel that MM is on it's way out.  Shoot, OF is on it's way out.  I know two models who do work for their OF and they are getting less and less subscriptions from that platform.  One possible reason is inflation has killed off peoples porn budget.  Another could be that most subscribers to OF might be just simply bored with their content.  Instagram is another platform that is seeing less and less people.  I for one rarely post anything there anymore. 


Ah....because your resume is supposed to be one page long.  It's an attention grabber.  It is a showcase of your skills at the job.  That's where Linkedin comes into play.  I have my volunteer work, my hobbies, etc. all there.  That gives HR and the Hiring manager a better description of who I am, rather than a one page summary. 

Sounds like you never have used Instagram to search for a model.  It's really simple.  It's all about marketing and using the hashtag (#).  It's really simple.  You open up Instagram, use the search function and find keywords like Seattle Models, or Denver models.  Or you search for fashion models.  Similar to MM search other than the fact that MM is strictly for models and photographers.  But it's the same concept. 

https://influencermarketinghub.com/instagram-search/

Sure is, but so is finding a model on MM.  Most never respond and according to you....the ultimate king/queen bee and ultimate expert on how to market someone as a model.....as you seem to act like.....never post up their recent work. 

So since you have clearly put out (and complained about ad nauseam) models are not posting their current work.  So your search efforts have to change and be modified.   Or you simply miss out on meeting some amazing models who have found that MM is not the platform for them.  I have contacted a good number of models in my area, and have had 2 respond back.  Yet on Instagram, I have had about 10 respond back.  I guess you are right when you stated:

I have had one model who gets more of their photographers from Instagram and OF than MM.  Yet you are the one who denies it.  Just look through the forums some time.  You will find numerous discussions on the fact that models never respond, or a few will.  You will see people complaining about getting unsolicited photography requests from models.  There is one titled, Models who choose to keep there MM account but.  The opening line pretty much says "a lot models keep accounts that are over 10 years with no intention of doing photoshoots. "

Then you stumble upon this statement from a model in that same thread,

"A lot of models moved away from MM because there was a period where the forums became tense. It felt like a war between models and photographers. So, many models choose to sperate from that. "

Hmm....sounds to me exactly what you are doing when you claim  you are forced to look at their OnlyFans page to see their most recent work.  So from the mouth of a model, sounds to me like Photographers who complain end up driving away the models.  Why would a model want to post recent work if they have people such as yourself who don't appreciate the fact that there are other modeling sites that are more conducive to finding work and working with people who are going to treat them with respect and not complain and claim they are being FORCED to do something?

The fact comes down to essentially this.  YOU need to adapt to how the industry is rather than the industry needs to be done YOUR way.  You don't need to see their current work to asses if you want to work with them.  Just like the resume thing.  You don't need to visit Linkedin to asses whether a candidate is right for the job.  That's where the interview comes into play.  HR and Hiring managers don't NEED to go to Linkedin, but they can if they feel they want to.  Like a hiring manager doesn't need to know what you did in 2nd grade, nor do they need to know what you did last week.  They are ONLY interested in what skills you have, so if ALL they look at is the resume, then that's perfectly fine.  But if they WANT to see more then they can go on Linkedin and visit the persons profile.  I am NOT forcing them to do so, that's of their own FREE will.  Something you seem to lack an understanding of.

I have already covered in this thread most of what you are saying here, and much of this text is not relevant.

Obviously, you are not really reading what I am saying (nor even what you are saying) nor are you fully considering what is being said.

What it actually comes down to is this:  There is no good reason for MM members to exclude pertinent information and work in their profile/portfolios.  Additionally, directing potential clients to other sites to see pertinent info/work is a bad idea which gives an edge to competing MM members with comprehensive and thorough profiles/portfolios.

If you can think of a good reason why an MM member should not post pertinent hiring information/work in their MM profile, please state that reason now.

Model MoRina wrote:
Yeah, okay. You were just kidding.

I was merely making a point.

You stated as a photographer that there were three "audiences" on MM:  all were guys and two of those audiences were concerned with a certain appendage while two of those audiences also were photographers.  I asked you to which of the guy/photographer audiences you belonged.

Given your own case, there obviously are more than just three audiences here.

Model MoRina wrote:
If you think there are droves of members in other categories here, then I will let you enjoy your delusion.

I never said that there were droves of other crew, but I have worked with plenty of them.  Currently there are 618 MUA's, 228 hair stylists, 493 retouchers, 161 wardrobe stylists and 357 clothing designers.

Model MoRina wrote:
And you fail to understand that the most clicks on this site probably come from non-members just looking for nudes and sexy pictures.

Well, that would just be a guess, as there really is no way of knowing that statistic unless you run MM.

The Other Place wrote:
You stated as a photographer that there were three "audiences" on MM:  all were guys and two of those audiences were concerned with a certain appendage while two of those audiences also were photographers.  I asked you to which of the guy/photographer audiences you belonged.

Given your own case, there obviously are more than just three audiences here.

WTF. For a guy that loves to write lots of words, your reading comprehension sucks. I never said photographers were all guys. My post is right there still if you'd like to go back and read what I wrote, instead of thinking you know what I said.

Model MoRina wrote:
WTF. For a guy that loves to write lots of words, your reading comprehension sucks. I never said photographers were all guys.

You are correct in that I was mistaken in what I wrote, but it was actually more of a "re-reading comprehension while getting a phone call" problem.

Also, please note that I got the scenario correctly in my first post:

The Other Place wrote:
Do you always hire your models, or are you "looking to get your dick hard?"

.

So, my point still stands --  there are more than just three "audiences" here.

By the way, you are also incorrect with the notion that I love to write a lot of words.  Unfortunately, I had to repeat/defend myself and paraphrase the same points to a few posters who don't seem to understand that I am utterly uninterested in OF content.

Model MoRina wrote:

There are a lot of reasons. Think about someone who likes the work of a particular Hollywood actor and runs to the theater every time one of their movies come out. It's called being a fan. Fans support the people they like.

You're a guy - you should know that tastes are very specific. Some people find what they like and don't need to look at thousands of different women to get their rocks off.

And sure, there are sites where you can view x-rated stuff for free, but most of it is pirated and the sites are full of malware. OF, and the other sites just like it, verifies creators and it's a stable, safe site. You know you are supporting the person who actually created the content. That matters to a whole lot of people.

Porn is an almost 100 billion dollar industry globally. So yes, people are paying to see naughty stuff.

I see, so now you're saying that people use these sites because they care deeply about the models and photographers and wish to support them financially, rather than just for thrills. It would be nice to believe that for sure.

The Other Place wrote:
If you can think of a good reason why an MM member should not post pertinent hiring information/work in their MM profile, please state that reason now.

I think that perhaps you don't understand what the purpose of OF is. It's a way for artists of all types to make money. It's not a place to go looking for models work, it's a place for them to interact with their fans.

I know five models who have OF accounts, they all post images they have self shot or have been shot by friends, often as content trade. They all post images from their travels too. None of them look at OF as a place to attract photographers who might want to hire them.

There are many OF creators who are not models and post videos of them cooking or surfing or creating some other art form.

Models on MM who include an OF link on their profile are looking to find people who might become their fans, thereby monetizing their content.

Red Sky Photography wrote:
I think that perhaps you don't understand what the purpose of OF is. It's a way for artists of all types to make money. It's not a place to go looking for models work, it's a place for them to interact with their fans.

I know five models who have OF accounts, they all post images they have self shot or have been shot by friends, often as content trade. They all post images from their travels too. None of them look at OF as a place to attract photographers who might want to hire them.

There are many OF creators who are not models and post videos of them cooking or surfing or creating some other art form.

Please read the OP.  In its second sentence, it states, "A few models list their OnlyFans along with the other locations where a photographer can see more of their portfolio."  I didn't make that up -- it says it right there in the second sentence of the OP!

Red Sky Photography wrote:
Models on MM who include an OF link on their profile are looking to find people who might become their fans, thereby monetizing their content.

Perhaps, but that is contrary to what the OP stated.

Most importantly, I never singled-out OF (unless I was responding to someone else who singled-out OF).  My warning about putting pertinent work/info only on sites other then MM were intended to also apply to Instagram, Flickr, Imgr, Tumblr... or whatever.  So, trying to inform me about OF is not really relevant.

Furthermore, my statements apply also to crew.  I never singled-out models (unless I was responding to someone else who singled-out models).  Do MM crew members give links to their OF page?

All of my statements about MM members putting pertinent content on another site are general -- they apply to any other site linked by MM members (not just OF) and they apply to both crew and on-camera talent.

So, folks, please quit saying that I want to see OF content for free and/or that I don't know what OF is.

Thanks!

Dan Howell wrote:
Maybe its just a differential between our abilities and experience, but I don't need to see OF content to 'assess your skills and/or look' but apparently you do.

You seem to be locked-in to a fixation with OF.

Did you happen to read above where I clarified just for your sake:
"... that is where the OF mentions originated in this thread, but for my point it could just as well be Instagram, Flickr, Imgr, Tumblr... or whatever.

I am not sure why it is necessary to clarify that, as I never really singled-out OF, except in response to your harping about it.

Dan Howell wrote:
Not sure why you keep hitting the point that you you can't make a casting decision based on measurements and a few photos...

Because, as I stated in my very first post in this thread:
"As a photographer viewing a model's MM profile, I seek their best and most recent work.  Up-to-date digitals/'roids are exceedingly helpful.  I need to see what a model can do and what a model looks like right now."

I posted this message before, but it was removed by the mods, because in this paragraph I linked to an MM model as an example.  Her portfolio shows she is exceptionally beautiful and that she has modeling chops.  However, none of the photos are more recent than 2012.  Would you cast such a model merely based on the profile measurements given and on the out-dated photos in her MM portfolio?

Now, let's say that this model gives links to another site (Instagram, Flickr, and, yes, OF, or whatever) to see her recent work, but you have searched MM and also found 50 other candidates with a similar look, most of whom show recent photos and/or digitals in their MM portfolios.

Are you going to take the time to follow the first model's links, or are you going to move on to peruse the other models who have already provided you with the images/information you need?

Usually, the links that models post for one to find more recent work direct to Instagram or to their own website (often useless, as there is never an indication of shooting dates for the photographs).  Occasionally, the models most recent Instagram posts are all old photos taken years ago.

I will note for you that I have never encountered such a link to OF, but apparently the OP has.

Keep in mind that if the link directs to Instagram, one often has to login to see the person's page, or one can use an Instagram viewer.  Neither of those options are convenient.

What gets me is that sometimes the link provided directs to a private Instagram page.  Brilliant!

Again, I am not singling-out models -- the same principle of providing the pertinent information/work on MM also applies to crew, although the work doesn't have to be recent for crew.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I was the first to reply to the OP about what I thought .. and after all others posting, what I would add is that there are so many platforms models can post images on including their own websites.  How many platforms are necessary to make your decision regarding who you will choose to work with??

Simple.

As many as it takes for me to get a pretty good idea I know who is going to show up for the shoot. Since all my model searching is done online, mainly MM, AND I am fairly particular as to the model types I am looking for, AND realizing that model portfolios are mostly post-processed versions of what they actually look like, I will search for as many examples/angles/lighting of the model's look I can find until I feel confident. I do not like surprises on shoot day. I don't like finding out a model's entire back is inked up, or that she has a prominent mole on her face she never got rid of, or has certain enhancements, ALL of which can be hidden in portfolio photos. And with all that, I still get fooled, but I have never sent a model home, preferring to make the most of the situation, since there was obviously something about the model that appealed to me.

Oh, and OF is not an option, but I have never had a model suggest that.

Adventure Photos wrote:
I often get the impression that many 'models' here have no plan or intent to be 'modeling'. They list their Patreon and OF links because they want to get paid members and make MONEY there, the easy way. Not by driving to/from a photo shoot with a respectable photographer.   I thought that OF was not allowed to be listed here at one time by any model?   A webpage, yes, and if the webpage then leads on to OF, that's how you'd find out.   Just so many fakes here who have a porn intent only. Met a model here who seemed 100% 'rookie' and girl next door.  Later found she had been doing porn vids within her second month on MM. Such as it is.

I believe that it was a policy not to allow direct OF links, but Modelmayhem and most all the major social platforms seem lenient towards the links to OF. It's easy to have a more "Links" link with all the other places one can be found. I suppose Modelmayhem has also become lenient too.  It's known for porn, but OF does have other creators that are not porn on the platform. Patreon can have nudity, but not porn. 

The number of new members joining this platform is not what it used to be. My impression is that not only have the number of new models declining, but that there are more muture models (and photographers) on this site as people grow older.  Many may not check their messages or log on for months or even years at a time.  Modelmayhem can't afford to lose models.  That could be why there are those "models" you've come across that give you the impression that they are not here to model.  I am not objectionable towards working with models who have done porn in the past.

Adventure Photos wrote:
I often get the impression that many 'models' here have no plan or intent to be 'modeling'. They list their Patreon and OF links because they want to get paid members and make MONEY there, the easy way. Not by driving to/from a photo shoot with a respectable photographer.   I thought that OF was not allowed to be listed here at one time by any model?   A webpage, yes, and if the webpage then leads on to OF, that's how you'd find out.   Just so many fakes here who have a porn intent only. Met a model here who seemed 100% 'rookie' and girl next door.  Later found she had been doing porn vids within her second month on MM. Such as it is.

Your language is super condescending. We get it. You look down on anyone who presents themselves here as a model and also may shoot naughty material.

Stop using the term model in quotes. Guess what a model is? It's someone who stands in front of a camera and is photographed/video'd or someone who poses for a painter or other artist. It doesn't matter if the person is wearing clothes or not, or doing something you consider wrong. They are still models. Not "models."

If I sell my own photography work, regardless of the venue, it does not suddenly make me not a model, or as you call it... a "model". It makes me a model, an actor, an editor, a director, a producer, a publisher, a bookkeeper, and a marketing director.

Model MoRina wrote:

Your language is super condescending. We get it. You look down on anyone who presents themselves here as a model and also may shoot naughty material.

Stop using the term model in quotes. Guess what a model is? It's someone who stands in front of a camera and is photographed/video'd or someone who poses for a painter or other artist. It doesn't matter if the person is wearing clothes or not, or doing something you consider wrong. They are still models. Not "models."

If I sell my own photography work, regardless of the venue, it does not suddenly make me not a model, or as you call it... a "model". It makes me a model, an actor, an editor, a director, a producer, a publisher, a bookkeeper, and a marketing director.

I don't disapprove of their choice to do explicit for sale at OF and elsewhere.   Since MM has supported models of all types, but in past months adjusted the POTD rules to eliminate just 'close up' explicit pics that won nearly every day, I think of MM as different. More like Model Society.   I only object to the models who come here to ONLY promote their OF pages and other explicit sorts of work for sale.    If MM chooses to allow that kind of work to be posted once again on a regular basis within MM profiles, then I'll not object to the use of MM as a platform to just sell explicit erotica.

Adventure Photos wrote:
I only object to the models who come here to ONLY promote their OF pages and other explicit sorts of work for sale

This has been a big part of the many reasons why MM is turning into a ghost town.
I've mentioned it many times before that MM is just a landing page to direct people to other websites.

Out of 10 Models which are in the 'New Members" category that I clicked on in or around my area, 4 of them had a link to their adult websites, and they haven't logged on recently.

I'm pretty sure they're just here to advertise their only fans, fansly, patreon, chat sites and whatever and not really wanting to book any shoots through MM.

It's sad.  This place used to be for models to try and get gigs.  Now it's really the last thing they're doing.

LadyDeadRabbit wrote:
I can't speak for any other models out there, I can only speak for myself but to me, that is a total money-grab. I personally put my Amazon wishlist along with all my other socials within the same Linktre.e as my online portfolio but I don't list them as "places to see more of my portfolio." Because it's not.

bullshit. you apparently didn't read the original message closely. I don't have the exact language in her profile, but neither do you.

From my reading, the model has a fairly standard Model Mayhem profile. The OP didn't say if the images included nudity which is clearly what he was looking for. The important sentence in my opinion is this: "included the usual sites along with an OF account. "  The Only Fans link was not the only site she included as examples of her modeling, it was possibly just the only one with a paywall. The fact that she did not give out a free pass for casting purposes, to me, shows that she was comfortable that her MM profile contains adequate information for casting and that the request for a free pass to someone who MIGHT hire her was inappropriate.

LadyDeadRabbit wrote:
... ultimately if he/she wants his/her work to be out there for potential paid-gigs then it is within their own best interest to provide those images for free to [at the very least] interested parties.

Exactly!

I would add that it is important to put that pertinent work on any site (especially MM) from which one might get hired.  Don't expect clients to chase your work around the Internet.

Particularly with models, always show some recent work.  Dated "digitals" are the best, and they can be easily captured with a cell phone and a blank wall (interior or exterior).

The Other Place wrote:

Exactly!

I would add that it is important to put that pertinent work on any site (especially MM) from which one might get hired.  Don't expect clients to chase your work around the Internet.

Particularly with models, always show some recent work.  Dated "digitals" are the best, and they can be easily captured with a cell phone and a blank wall (interior or exterior).

Except that her Only Fans account may not contain any 'pertinent work' for which she might be hired. Many OF accounts have images that the account holder does not/will not shoot with every photographer. It's like on MM, checking yes to nudes, but not listing erotic as a genre she is available to shoot.

The Model gets to choose where to SHARE her work and where to make it available for a price.

Red Sky Photography wrote:
Except that her Only Fans account may not contain any 'pertinent work' for which she might be hired. Many OF accounts have images that the account holder does not/will not shoot with every photographer.

I am not sure what is your point, as I maintain that it is a bad idea for MM members to only put their pertinent info on other sites, such as Instagram, Flickr, Imgur, etc... and even OF.

I am not suggesting nor have I ever suggested that potential clients should go to OF to review work.  Not sure how anyone could get that notion after reading my posts in this thread.

On the contrary, I am saying the complete opposite:  it is important for any member of a site to put their pertinent info/work on that site -- if that member wants to get hired/cast from that site.  Don't expect potential clients to chase your work/info around the Internet.

Red Sky Photography wrote:
It's like on MM, checking yes to nudes, but not listing erotic as a genre she is available to shoot.

That doesn't seem like an accurate analogy to your previous scenario of a model not having pertinent work on her OF profile, but, regardless, it likewise is not relevant to my points.

Red Sky Photography wrote:
The Model gets to choose where to SHARE her work and where to make it available for a price.

Certainly, and I am saying that a model should put all pertinent work and info on the site from which he/she expects to get hired.  Otherwise, the model might lose out to competitors on that site who have provided a comprehensive and thorough presentation of work/info.

Once again, in the case of models, they would be wise to show recent work with capture dates or just post recent cell phone "digitals" with capture dates.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
What are we arguing about?  To have an OF profile or promote it as a place for a prospective client to view is a choice for models or photographers.   There are many websites that keep content behind a paywall.  Websites like newspapers, magazines, to websites with adult content.  As a photographer who has produced content for paysites, owned paysites, provided cc billing for paysites, subscribed to paysites .. with all of this being a choice.  Even Modelmayhem gives you the choice to pay for a membership or not. 

A model or a photographer will provide links to platforms where she or he believes that clients will find examples of their work.  If any of those links are behind a paywall, then the potential client can either ask for a pass or go ahead with paying for the subscription. Newpapers and magazines are online because hardly anyone is buying the physical copies. They charge for subscriptions. It's not much different from adult content websites. Most websites are trying to make a profit. Those of us who use Patreon and/or Only Fans either as creators or subscribers understand this simple concept.

The solution for someone who is conflected as to if they need to see what a model's OF has behind the paywall is simple too .. just ask! The model might give you a password.  Another thing is that it is possible that OF profiles are FREE to subscrie to.  I happen to be subscribing to 26 FREE profiles on OF many of which are of models I work with.  However, OF is NOT meant to be a platform for booking or meeting in person.  If you use the word "meet" you're going to get in trouble.  I follow many models and others on Instagram, Facebook, X "formally Twitter", Patreon, LinkedIn, and many other platforms besides Modelmayhem. 

How many platforms does the OP (photographer) need to go to in order to find the information they need to make a decision as to hiring a model?  I know for mayself that I don't have to look at every link.  I do want to verify that someone is indeed legit.  There are catfish and AI profiles that are meant to scam. I've gotten pretty good at recognizing those. I don't only base a decision on the images I see, I want to speak on the phone or web call on Facebook for example, and the vast majority of models understand this.  We don't have to have a long conversation or interview.  It's all about communication.

another voice of reason

you know, the obvious answer is that they have a problem with paying women for their sexuality, making all of this reason moot. they need to tell themselves and their buddies that "they never paid"

but if they value their own time, then they'll learn to value the model's time. unless their time isn't valuable, fix that first.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
What are we arguing about?  To have an OF profile or promote it as a place for a prospective client to view is a choice for models or photographers.

That's not what I am arguing for, nor does the OP suggest that.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
There are many websites that keep content behind a paywall.  Websites like newspapers, magazines, to websites with adult content.  As a photographer who has produced content for paysites, owned paysites, provided cc billing for paysites, subscribed to paysites .. with all of this being a choice.  Even Modelmayhem gives you the choice to pay for a membership or not.

Not sure what the point is here.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
A model or a photographer will provide links to platforms where she or he believes that clients will find examples of their work.

It's generally a bad idea for the model or crew to direct a prospective client to a secondary website to see pertinent work.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
If any of those links are behind a paywall, then the potential client can either ask for a pass or go ahead with paying for the subscription.

Having pertinent work behind a paywall or login cut is an exceptionally bad idea for model or crew trying to get cast/hired.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Newpapers and magazines are online because hardly anyone is buying the physical copies. They charge for subscriptions. It's not much different from adult content websites. Most websites are trying to make a profit. Those of us who use Patreon and/or Only Fans either as creators or subscribers understand this simple concept.

The concept is simple to understand, but what is the point?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
The solution for someone who is conflected as to if they need to see what a model's OF has behind the paywall is simple too .. just ask!

Unfortunately, there is another simple solution that many prospective clients will take -- they will merely click away, on to the next prospective model/crew-member.

A lot of potential clients would not want to reveal that they are interested in a model/crew-member.  What if a client asks for and gets access to examples of model/crew work, and the examples show that the model/crew-member is not fit for the job?  Then, the client is in an awkward situation in which they have to reject that model/crew-person.

No, before they stick their neck out to ask for access to work somewhere else on the Internet, the prospective clients will simply click away, to the profiles and portfolios of other prospects.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
The model might give you a password.  Another thing is that it is possible that OF profiles are FREE to subscrie to.  I happen to be subscribing to 26 FREE profiles on OF many of which are of models I work with.  However, OF is NOT meant to be a platform for booking or meeting in person.  If you use the word "meet" you're going to get in trouble.  I follow many models and others on Instagram, Facebook, X "formally Twitter", Patreon, LinkedIn, and many other platforms besides Modelmayhem.

A prospective client would have to be extremely interested in a particular model to bother with all that hassle.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
How many platforms does the OP (photographer) need to go to in order to find the information they need to make a decision as to hiring a model?

The prospective client should never have to leave the platform they are already searching, as the talent/crew should provide a comprehensive and thorough profile/portfolio on that platform.

By the way, the OP never suggested that they need to go to other platforms to see work -- the OP stated that the prospective model had a section in her profile titled, "Want to See More of My Work as a Model."  That section had links to other sites on the Internet, which OP followed to find pertinent (or more recent?) work that, for some reason, was not included in the model's MM page.

The Other Place wrote:
By the way, the OP never suggested that they need to go to other platforms to see work -- the OP stated that the prospective model had a section in her profile titled, "Want to See More of My Work as a Model."  That section had links to other sites on the Internet, which OP followed to find pertinent (or more recent?) work that, for some reason, was not included in the model's MM page.

This is your 20th post on this topic. We get it. You and the OP are offended at the suggestion that a model posts links off this site. It appears that so many of the rest of us simply do not agree with you. We don't find the actions on the model's part illegal, immoral or even a bad business idea. We allow for the possibility that the model was making cogent decisions about what imagery that she was putting in her MM profile. You have no idea what kind of content is on her OF site. You have no idea if it is pertinent.

Do you have problem with a model putting a link to a personal instagram? Oh wait, you must be under the impression that all model's pages and link have to be laser focused on your casting questions. I still don't get why you are so proud or your inability to make casting decisions from a small amount of information and a few images. Most professionals I know would call that a weakness.

Dan Howell wrote:
This is your 20th post on this topic.  We get it.

I am not sure that you are actually getting it.

Dan Howell wrote:
You and the OP are offended at the suggestion that a model posts links off this site.

Obviously, you still don't get it.

I couldn't care less whether or not a model posts links off of this site.

However, it is in the best interests of the model wanting to get cast from MM to put all pertinent and recent info/work on MM -- regardless of the links the model posts.

And I will repeat yet again that what I am saying does not only apply to models, but also applies to crew wanting to get hired (except crew doesn't necessarily need to show recent work).

Additionally, your notions about the OP are incorrect.  The OP merely inquired for opinions on the scenario described.  The OP never expressed an opinion on models posting links off of MM.

Dan Howell wrote:
It appears that so many of the rest of us simply do not agree with you.

Well, it appears that you and several others aren't "getting" what I am actually saying.

Dan Howell wrote:
We don't find the actions on the model's part illegal, immoral...

Nor do I.  We are in agreement here.

Dan Howell wrote:
... or even a bad business idea.

We most definitely disagree here, if you really think that it is a good business decision for models seeking clients on MM to only include recent work and/or recent digitals on sites other than MM.

Dan Howell wrote:
We allow for the possibility that the model was making cogent decisions about what imagery that she was putting in her MM profile.

Please provide a scenario in which it is a cogent business decision for a model to exclude pertinent/recent work from his/her MM portfolio, when seeking to get cast by prospective clients on MM.

Dan Howell wrote:
You have no idea what kind of content is on her OF site. You have no idea if it is pertinent.

Of course, I don't.  Neither does a prospective client casting on MM.

So, why would a prospective client on MM go through all of the hassle and potential awkwardness of trying to get an OF password from a model and then log-in to OF, when the client can merely click over to the 20 other qualified models who provide comprehensive profiles with recent work and/or digitals?

Dan Howell wrote:
Do you have problem with a model putting a link to a personal instagram?

No.

Dan Howell wrote:
Oh wait, you must be under the impression that all model's pages and link have to be laser focused on your casting questions.

No.

You do not understand what I am saying.

Once again, if a model seeks to get cast on MM, the model should merely include pertinent info and recent work (or, even better, recent digitals) in his/her MM profile.  Posting such crucial work only on another site is not wise.

Dan Howell wrote:
I still don't get why you are so proud or your inability to make casting decisions from a small amount of information and a few images.

Because, as I demonstrated in a previous example, that information and those images often are outdated.

I actually linked the profile of a currently active MM model whose most recent profile photos are 11 years old, but the mods deleted my post.  (I re-posted the message without the link).

Would you cast a model with pictures no more recent than 11 years ago?

Dan Howell wrote:
Most professionals I know would call that a weakness.

On the contrary, if a prospective client passes on a model with outdated work and no recent digitals, I would call that a definitive (and unavoidable) casting decision.

itslouisartmodel wrote:
This is an interesting topic. I think people need to clear a mind that every art has its own expressive side. Sometimes we ask for works to be recognized as art by the audience, but we act otherwise. Being a model, I learned how every site is based on a narrow box. Basically, we judge and judge fellow models, painters or photographers.

At the end, every work is a matter of appreciation and money too (don't forget). We don't live just creating arts but also paying bills too. Sell ​​arts in every site is your own freedom and way.

Every site has a function and way to connect everyone in the community

Hello Lewis, and welcome to the Mayhem!  This thread of comments is interesting but went circles when one comment writer in particular was arguing as though there is something wrong with a model or photographer having lnks to other platforms where more of their work can be seen.  This platform should not be the only place one posts their work. This website has become more limited with age.  Most of us are using other platforms and have no problem going to those links when deciding if we are going to work with that other person or not.  I'm not adverse to OF at all.  You say. "I believe nude and erotic as the most honest genre."  and I am in agreement with you on that.

No matter what position a person is in, be it as a model or photographer, a business or a hobby, it costs money to be in model photography.   As for "if" it is a good business decision to post a link on Modelmayhem to another platform that has a paywall, well Modelmayem IS one of those web platforms that has a paywall.  If I'm not logged in, I can't post in the forum, and I can't see the "mature" content.  I can't even message any of the members.  I'm not even sure I can see all profiles! 

We should be attempting to find ways of making this a more welcoming community.  Young, new models are not joining this website like they used to.  Photographers are not even joining like they used to, but there are still a lot of the long time members here like myself.

Perhaps you can enlighten me?  Are you able to model nude with the strict pornography laws in Thailand??  It seems that it would be a risky slope to pose nude there. I mean .. like who are the judges of the legalities as to what is "porn"  there?   I would not want to take that risk.  Also how do they regulate the web?

"Specifically in Thailand pornography is illegal. Thailand has a very conservative culture. Notwithstanding the fact Thailand has a very tolerant culture, the overall cultural mores here are toward the conservative and pornography is no exception."

https://www.legal.co.th/resources/thail … exception.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
... one comment writer in particular was arguing as though there is something wrong with a model or photographer having lnks to other platforms where more of their work can be seen.

Who made that argument?  Please provide a link to a post that says that.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
... one comment writer in particular was arguing as though there is something wrong with a model or photographer having lnks to other platforms where more of their work can be seen.

The Other Place wrote:
Who made that argument?  Please provide a link to a post that says that.

The Other Place wrote:
The prospective client should never have to leave the platform they are already searching, as the talent/crew should provide a comprehensive and thorough profile/portfolio on that platform.

By the way, the OP never suggested that they need to go to other platforms to see work -- the OP stated that the prospective model had a section in her profile titled, "Want to See More of My Work as a Model."  That section had links to other sites on the Internet, which OP followed to find pertinent (or more recent?) work that, for some reason, was not included in the model's MM page.

That is what you wrote in a comment to me.  If a "prospective client" shouldn't ever have to leave the platform, then links to other platforms are not needed according to you. The reason that a model or photographer might not have all the images and information possible in their Modelmayhem profile is that there are limits and costs involved. Also we have different reasons, professional or hobbist for being here.  So posting links that take a user to another platform sounded like something you were against?  I do not understand you.  It seems like a circular arguement .. and we don't need more arguing on this.  Everyone has choices.  What is it that you are against, or are you just posting comments to see your name???  I have no idea??

The Other Place wrote:
The prospective client should never have to leave the platform they are already searching, as the talent/crew should provide a comprehensive and thorough profile/portfolio on that platform.

By the way, the OP never suggested that they need to go to other platforms to see work -- the OP stated that the prospective model had a section in her profile titled, "Want to See More of My Work as a Model."  That section had links to other sites on the Internet, which OP followed to find pertinent (or more recent?) work that, for some reason, was not included in the model's MM page.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
That is what you wrote in a comment to me.

Where in my comment (that you quoted) do I suggest that "there is something wrong with a model or photographer having links to other platforms where more of their work can be seen?"

Patrick Walberg wrote:
If a "prospective client" shouldn't ever have to leave the platform, then links to other platforms are not needed according to you.

So, again, how does my statement (which you quoted) equate to "there is something wrong with a model or photographer having links to other platforms where more of their work can be seen?"

By the way, I never said anything about a model's/crew-member's links to another site being "needed" or "unneeded."  You came to that notion on your own.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
The reason that a model or photographer might not have all the images and information possible in their Modelmayhem profile is that there are limits and costs involved.

This point is irrelevant to your misquoting of me.

Nevertheless, please give examples of limits and costs that would prevent a model or crew-member from posting on MM images and data pertinent to prospective clients.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Also we have different reasons, professional or hobbist for being here.

Well, if one's reason for being on MM is to get cast or hired, it is in one's best interest to provide within one's profile all of the pertinent photos and data that would appeal to prospective clients.  Never expect prospective clients to chase your work around the Internet.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
So posting links that take a user to another platform sounded like something you were against?

No.  You make an incorrect assumption.

Go back and read my posts more carefully.

I never said that it was wrong for MM members to post links to their work on other sites.  I said that MM members should not put "client-pertinent" work only on other sites.

You might notice that, for clarification, I also put it another way in a previous post:
"However, it is in the best interests of the model wanting to get cast from MM to put all pertinent and recent info/work on MM -- regardless of the links the model posts."

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I do not understand you.

Of course, you don't.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
It seems like a circular arguement

The concept I offer is basic, simple, common sense.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
.. and we don't need more arguing on this.

Well, if you feel that way, perhaps you should stop arguing on this and also cease misquoting me.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Everyone has choices.

How is this statement relevant?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
What is it that you are against, or are you just posting comments to see your name???  I have no idea??

I am against someone misquoting me.

I also think that it is a bad idea for a member of a site designed for casting/hiring to expect a prospective client on that site go elsewhere on the Internet to see that member's pertinent work (but there is nothing wrong with the member having links to work elsewhere).