International Artists Management Sending Fake Auditions

Written By Alexa Morden

The information regarding this agency has been taken from articles written by Jake Kanter at Deadline Hollywood. Links to all relevant original articles are listed at the bottom of this post. This article is not written with malicious intent, nor to defame anyone. It is shared in good faith and in the public interest, based on information already reported publicly or directly experienced by others. The purpose is awareness and education - not personal attack.

Self tapes have become a cornerstone of the modern audition process. They’ve allowed actors to be seen remotely, created new access to opportunities, and helped the industry adapt post-pandemic. But with these positives has come a disturbing revelation: some agencies have been abusing the system.

In the summer of 2024, following the Bodhi Scandal that catapulted the immoral case of fake audition requests into the limelight, it came to light that International Artists Management (I.A.M) had been sending their clients fake self tape requests, alongside other concerns. According to Deadline’s investigation, an actor was told he’d been invited to audition for multiple roles when in fact no such request had ever come from casting - with confidential scripts and sides being distributed without permission.

In a statement, IAM admitted that it had made “mistakes” in its communication with the actor that brought his experience to Deadline. They stated that they had since updated processes around the handling of self-tape auditions. “The happiness and success of our clients continue to be paramount,” the company said.

The fallout was immediate. I.A.M was removed from the Personal Managers’ Association, casting directors publicly expressed alarm, and the industry at large was shaken by the breach of trust. As many other clients started learning that their audition requests from I.A.M were also fake, they were facing the fact that the agent they trusted with their career was in fact taking advantage of, and exploiting, that trust.

IAM argued that completing unsolicited tapes was in the actors best interests and was a tool to secure him maximum exposure with decision-makers, but the agency did not explain why it was not fully transparent with the actor about this strategy. This behaviour cannot be brushed off as a good exercise for the actor, or something that was done with good intentions from the agent. It is emotionally distressing to find out that something you put time, hope, and energy into, in hopes of an opportunity, was never real. The actor disputed this too, saying he was not made aware by IAM that he was recording 24 unsolicited self-tapes. Had he known he was auditioning for casting directors without an invite, he said he would have declined to do so.

To properly address these ‘explanations’, it’s important to stress the difference between an unsolicited tape and a fake tape. An unsolicited tape happens when an agent believes a client might be right for a role and submits them to casting, making it clear that it’s an agent-led push. A fake tape, however, is something else entirely: deceitful, exploitative, and damaging. It tricks actors into believing they’re being considered when they’re not, it abuses confidential material, and it undermines both actors’ trust in their agents and casting directors’ trust in the audition process.

And here’s what the industry must not ignore: when an agency is willing to mislead actors with fake auditions, it raises serious questions about what else may be happening behind closed doors. Deceit in one area may point to wider issues. Fake auditions are rarely an isolated misstep.

The 98% has long advocated for clearer, updated self tape guidelines and an in-site option for uploading and distributing tapes directly on Spotlight. These would protect actors, prevent casting directors from being taken advantage of, and make it harder for agencies to manipulate or mislead their clients.

A big question remains, though. Why is an agent who has been breaking Spotlight’s confidentiality clauses and deliberately deceiving actors still allowed to use “The UK’s Home of Casting”? What message does that send to other agents who may be doing the same thing? Since the Deadline articles came out exposing this behaviour, one actor has alleged that it is still happening, sharing information and evidence that suggests the practice hasn’t stopped. If true, that means actors are still being misled today - despite the public outcry and industry consequences.

Actors should never have to wonder whether an audition is real. And the industry should not turn a blind eye to behaviour that is deceitful at best and corrupt at worst, because, sadly, it is happening elsewhere.

Shining a light on practices like fake self tapes is not just about protecting actors’ time. It’s about exposing systems that rely on secrecy, fear, and silence - and making sure that exploitation cannot continue unchecked.


Alexa Morden
Previous

Ryan Kirwan: The Showreel Filmmaker Who Cyberflashed Actresses
Next

Bodhi Talent: The Scandal That Opened the Floodgates