Bunnie Page wrote:

LOL, but see... if I were to have that $500 I could make it up there even sooner!

Good girl...

ADGibson wrote:
I read through the model agreement that was sent to me by another MM member. I don't see where a photographer is locked in by this agreement. Would anyone be willing to send me the photographer agreement? I'm not sure I want to contact SG directly for it. Who knows what they do with those email addresses.

Aaron

Getting them to send an actual contract requires you shooting an actual set for them....well three actual sets for them.

BrooklynPhoto wrote:
.. why would I bother?

To get the "the coveted pink SG panties" damnit, that's why!

BrooklynPhoto wrote:
SG is trashy, overratted and not terribly creative if you ask me.  I don't understand the appeal, and if the contract terms are what people say they are, why would I bother?

Envy wrote:
To get the "the coveted pink SG panties" damnit, that's why!

On mans trash is another mans bread.



Envy in the SG pink panties........sigh

James Jackson wrote:

Getting them to send an actual contract requires you shooting an actual set for them....well three actual sets for them.

What the?!...is there a photographer agreement or release of some type? I'm sure models can't just send in a set without the photographers permission.

Craig Thomson wrote:
Stop for a minute and think of all the Talented Gothic and fetish models that don’t fit into mainstream modeling.

I’m thankful for sites like SuicideGirls, Spookygirls, Chaoschicks, BlackMetalBitches and the other sites that boost the egos of the non conventional models and give them an avenue to display their wares.

From there I’ve been able to meet and shoot so many awesome models.

I love pierced, tattooed, pale ass models

Well, that is nice, and it is good that girls who aren't considered "normal"-looking have a forum... I just would prefer it if that forum actually treated those girls, and the photographers who shoot them, with respect. I don't know about the contracts at the other places you mentioned, which might be better - but as was pointed out, a Suicide Girl would be unable to model for them, anyway, as stated in her contract. There are other, better ways to get your ego boosted, I think. This site is working pretty well for me...

Craig Thomson wrote:
Stop for a minute and think of all the Talented Gothic and fetish models that don’t fit into mainstream modeling.

I’m thankful for sites like SuicideGirls, Spookygirls, Chaoschicks, BlackMetalBitches and the other sites that boost the egos of the non conventional models and give them an avenue to display their wares.

From there I’ve been able to meet and shoot so many awesome models.

I love pierced, tattooed, pale ass models

I agree with you Craig. Variety is the spice of life.

Catriona wrote:
Well, that is nice, and it is good that girls who aren't considered "normal"-looking have a forum... I just would prefer it if that forum actually treated those girls, and the photographers who shoot them, with respect. I don't know about the contracts at the other places you mentioned, which might be better - but as was pointed out, a Suicide Girl would be unable to model for them, anyway, as stated in her contract. There are other, better ways to get your ego boosted, I think. This site is working pretty well for me...

Agreed.

Catriona wrote:

Well, that is nice, and it is good that girls who aren't considered "normal"-looking have a forum... I just would prefer it if that forum actually treated those girls, and the photographers who shoot them, with respect. I don't know about the contracts at the other places you mentioned, which might be better - but as was pointed out, a Suicide Girl would be unable to model for them, anyway, as stated in her contract. There are other, better ways to get your ego boosted, I think. This site is working pretty well for me...

I've only shot 3 former Suicide Girls from this site, and I did it without subscribing to their site.
They drew the line in the sand, it's our prerogative to cross that line or not.

James Jackson wrote:
Getting them to send an actual contract requires you shooting an actual set for them....well three actual sets for them.

Not true.  I had several girls approach me about shooting for them, so I got in touch & they sent me their model release, photographer release, and assignment of copyright statement.
I have them for anyone who'd like to see them.
I read them & refused to shoot for them.
Among other things, the way it's worded could put me in legal jeapordy for using any pictures of the models I shoot for them, even if it's a wholly seperate shoot.

Allegiance Design wrote:
500 dollars is still not enough to cover your court fees when they sue you for trying to further your exposure to other sites.  Just Say NO to SG!

Well...it would be bad business practice for them to actually pay your court fees!

SLE Photography wrote:

Not true.  I had several girls approach me about shooting for them, so I got in touch & they sent me their model release, photographer release, and assignment of copyright statement.
I have them for anyone who'd like to see them.
I read them & refused to shoot for them.
Among other things, the way it's worded could put me in legal jeapordy for using any pictures of the models I shoot for them, even if it's a wholly seperate shoot.

I apologize... this is what I was told when I asked to see said documents...by the "photographer manager".  Her exact words when I asked if I could see the legal documents I would have to fill out was, "When you send in your first test sets, you will be sent back the documents to sign and the information on editing and photoshoping your sets."

James Jackson wrote:
I apologize... this is what I was told when I asked to see said documents...by the "photographer manager".  Her exact words when I asked if I could see the legal documents I would have to fill out was, "When you send in your first test sets, you will be sent back the documents to sign and the information on editing and photoshoping your sets."

It took me a few e-mails, but I pointed out to them I couldn't shoot sets if I didn't have guidelines, and couldn't arrange things with the models without releases in advance.
Like I said, once I READ the forms I said "Hell no" anyway.

DMHolman wrote:
What has always bewildered me is that for a site that was supposedly started by a photographer (no matter what her experience level was) they have an unbelievable lack of respect for photographers.
...

Me thinks that's part of the creation myth of SG, it feeds into the whole girl power thing they've got the girls thinking that runs the site.

AdamtheJohnson wrote:
I say SO WHAT to the negativity regarding the contract. So, I'm giving up copyright. Am  putting these images in a farking Gallery opening or something? I mean, I'm not doing THIS site for the artistic creativity I experience.

So, I can't shoot for anotehr porn paysite? Um, so? That's not exactly where I'm headed.

And hey, 100-200 dollars is plenty for an after noon of work. I know some photogs that shoot 5-10 sets in a week. A very green, unemployed photog I'm seeing friggin dollar signs here,

So why all the hate? I absoutely love the girls.

And Im about to shoot my first set and send it in.

Its photographers with this attitude that are destroying the industry. $100-$200 for an afternoons work and lose all rights to the images, can not work in the same field for two years, where are your brains?
If this rate is all you aspire to then I would advise a change of profession or hobby.

jmc wrote:

Its photographers with this attitude that are destroying the industry. $100-$200 for an afternoons work and lose all rights to the images, can not work in the same field for two years, where are your brains?

I agree. This is what makes SG so exploitative - that $200 may look like big money to you, Adam, but it's chump change to them...and while you're signing away your rights to the photos and your ability to work with competitors for that chump change, they're making BIG money off those photos. They love photographers like you - if it weren't for talented people willing to work for virtually nothing, the whole thing would fall apart. I really like the look of your work - don't waste it on those people!

AdamtheJohnson wrote:
And hey, 100-200 dollars is plenty for an after noon of work. I know some photogs that shoot 5-10 sets in a week. A very green, unemployed photog I'm seeing friggin dollar signs here,

So why all the hate? I absoutely love the girls.

hell, i get paid more than that to shoot unsigned music artists, lol, and truthfully, the non-compete is kinda understandable but for 2 years, thats not a good look at all if you plan on even thinking about getting into something maybe a year down the line.

please dont tell me you'd sell your soul for some hotcakes and hash browns from the waffle house, lol. but honestly, thats about 100-200 more than some of the urban photographers get paid in that paysite market, the worst kept secret is that alot of those photographers who contribute sets/shoot with the models for their paysites dont get a cent... except "exposure" if that counts for anything, hahaha

but i agree with the other comment - i like the fact that they have their own outlet to express themselves and do what they do within their own world, because naturally they wont be accepted in mainstream/general america, so its good to see their own little community, but definitely slavery ended many many moons ago.

KM von Seidl wrote:
Me thinks that's part of the creation myth of SG, it feeds into the whole girl power thing they've got the girls thinking that runs the site.

I kind of have that feeling myself, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt since I don't know for sure.  It's the cynical pessimist in me. 

jmc wrote:

Its photographers with this attitude that are destroying the industry. $100-$200 for an afternoons work and lose all rights to the images, can not work in the same field for two years, where are your brains?
If this rate is all you aspire to then I would advise a change of profession or hobby.

Yeah, I'm destrying the industry. Please.

So I lose rights to pictures I have no personal attachment to? Big deal.

So I can't shoot for other porn paysites. BIG DEAL. I don't, nor do I plan to.

My career is more focused on Fine Art and Gallery Openings for the next couple of years. What's so bad about an added paycheck?

And don't give me the dreaded 'You should be doing this for the art' campaign.

AdamtheJohnson wrote:

Yeah, I'm destrying the industry. Please.

So I lose rights to pictures I have no personal attachment to? Big deal.

So I can't shoot for other porn paysites. BIG DEAL. I don't, nor do I plan to.

My career is more focused on Fine Art and Gallery Openings for the next couple of years. What's so bad about an added paycheck?

And don't give me the dreaded 'You should be doing this for the art' campaign.

because you're devaluing your own work, so thereby devaluing the work of everyone else...asshole

James Jackson wrote:

because you're devaluing your own work, so thereby devaluing the work of everyone else...asshole

Riiiiiiight.

Obviously you dont know how much my work is going for these days. Which is nothing.

AdamtheJohnson wrote:

Riiiiiiight.

Obviously you dont know how much my work is going for these days. Which is nothing.

No, obviously your going rate is $200

so, if I as a corporate client asked you to shoot a catalog for me at $200/day would you say yes?

If so...I have a catalog you can shoot.

AdamtheJohnson wrote:
Of course I would.

And you know what else, I would STILL do the best damn job I'm capable of doing.

I dont know where your mindset is, but before I stepped into photography I was a Cinematographer. We would spend THOUSANDS of dollars making movies only to see them shelved after a year of hard work ad ZERO dollars in return. It's called paying your dues. It's called learning.

So excuse me if I'm doing someting I WANT to do. As opposed to maximizing my profit, which seems to be what you're more concerned with.

hehe,  nice one.

THAT was actually inspirational!

:-)

-Glenn

James Jackson wrote:

I apologize... this is what I was told when I asked to see said documents...by the "photographer manager".  Her exact words when I asked if I could see the legal documents I would have to fill out was, "When you send in your first test sets, you will be sent back the documents to sign and the information on editing and photoshoping your sets."

Not directed at you James - Doesn't the persistent use of the word "sets" give a photographer with any experience all the information he/she needs to keep a good 500 mile distance?

John

AdamtheJohnson wrote:

Riiiiiiight.

Obviously you dont know how much my work is going for these days. Which is nothing.

I understand  both points, not wanting to sell your work for $200, and the fact that if you don't do it, you have nothing....

For established photographers, $200 may be nothing, but for people just starting out (like me), $200 is more than they'd have otherwise.
And no, I wouldn't do SuicideGirls. But the $200 for 2 days worth of work, and signing my rights away, seems fine to me, at this stage...

AdamtheJohnson wrote:

Riiiiiiight.

Obviously you dont know how much my work is going for these days. Which is nothing.

Exactly, I can't even *give* my work away....

Envy wrote:

To get the "the coveted pink SG panties" damnit, that's why!

lol

James Jackson wrote:

I apologize... this is what I was told when I asked to see said documents...by the "photographer manager".  Her exact words when I asked if I could see the legal documents I would have to fill out was, "When you send in your first test sets, you will be sent back the documents to sign and the information on editing and photoshoping your sets."

strange... when she contacted me on the site she sent me the contracts and all.