|
My experience with SG over the past 3 years: - Lost two models I wanted to shoot because SG has that no-compete contract (at least they read it). They were just starting out and thought they would be getting $300 per month. I am definately competition since I do fetish photo sets. I will give SG credit they now pay on average more then I can. - Had an offer a year later to shoot a model at her request for SG. This was just after I had read a SPIN magazine article on SG - not favorable of SG at all. So I did some research because of her request. I was fortunately able to pass on some of my research to this model and she no longer has any plans to work for them. After doing my research and it was fairly extensive - including reading both sides I came to the following concclusion, Now I am a male photographer and love taking pictures of naked Goth chicks, but there is NO WAY I would ever do one for a model going to SG. From what I derived from my research SG exploits women (most porn sites these days don't any longer) and it appears to be actually run by an abusive dominant male (even if the paper work says otherwise). The non-competitive contract was even worse a few years ago from what my research showed, but they lost some court cases (or didn't bother contesting). From what I have read many of the girls were booted off the site when they mentioned they had not gotten the money or been treated like they were supposed to. Also from what I read SG has attempted in the past to have the same girls banned from other sites they were complaigning about SG on. Does this sound like an empowering company you want to work for. I can understand some of the needs for copyright ownership and some exclusivity rights, but SG's are not in line with their compensation - not even close in my opinion. And for reality check - there are no porn sites of any kind that anyone is going to pay attention to the photographer unless they are into photography. I may give an exception to Playboy, but they occasionally highlight the photographers on their site. the only photographer highlighted on SG from what I have seen is original and she is appears to be a figure head to suck in the naive. Just my opinion, Jul 08 06 02:50 pm Link I applied & did the interview process about a year in half ago. I went in for a group interview at a local coffee shop. I was told they like the feedback of the models and want their creative input. I wanted to do it because I like making clothing & I have dabbled in set design as well. So I thought wonderful. They immediately wanted me to talk with Missy, after rescheduling a couple of times we did it. I brought in sketches & ideas and showed her what I had in mind & she instantly didn't want to talk anymore. I did test shots & that was it. I had to wait for her to take my first set, because that was the rule at the time & they were insistant on me signing the contract first so I did & sent it in. Well I got flaked on a constantly, & yes I know they are busy but so am I and everyone else out here is too, very bad business in a town where everyone's time is valuable. So I kept contacting her assistant by email & again always too busy. So 6 month later I find out that I can do my own first set now & I did, this decision was made months before & I was never informed. If they like it great if not then no dice. Well they kept on losing my paperwork, stuff with my personal info, like social security numbers, address etc. This bothered me tremendously. They also wanted me to redo the set with their photog who was in town at the time, but I had to set it up with her. I found this odd but soon found out that they had no model coordinator. So that was why I had to make all planning with the photog. So I did, I had to pick this person up & drop her off & help her set up. She was great & did great pics, she was on time & kept her word about getting me a copy of my images in a timely manor. She submitted them to SG after about 2 weeks, they had a new model coordinator who let me know they got them & they would let me know if they need anything else soon. Three weeks go by & still no word, so I contact the new coordinator & she didn't even know who I was. So I explained & about an hour later I was told thanks but no thanks. However, I was promised a free 6 months to the site, although I was waiting for longer than that to find out about modeling. Oh, & I was charged anyway, so I just cancelled. I was disappointed in the fact that they were so disorganized and unprofessional. They are making $ hand over fist with memberships, books, DVD's and merchandise. If they didn't want me to model they could have let me know early on, instead of hoping I would go away. I've made better money doing things for myself out here, which is hard & a lot of work but in my experiences with other professionals, models and photographers. They won't touch them either. $300 or even $500 ain't much when you pay your photog (which you better do!) and make-up and set people, if you use them. Especially with all the $ they make off the site. That and as a customer, if you promise free goods then deliver. Right after my experience many models left and I understand why. If you want to do anything professionally be it modeling, designing, photography anything, I strongly hope you don't sign on with them. The contract is very binding and can be a big problem for you later on. However, if that is all you want to do then go for it? Ultimately the decision is up to you but read what you sign carefully not only with them but anyone and think hard. Being smart is far more powerful than good looks. Jul 08 06 03:16 pm Link Jim Ball wrote: If the contract I saw is right, it's actually 4 years of no compete. They sign a 1 year contract with an option for an additional year, then it's two years after the contract expires that you can't compete or talk about them bad. (I think that may be unconstitutional, but, whatever). Jul 08 06 03:23 pm Link I'd do it, but only if it's a girl who comes to me who I wouldn't ordinarily shoot with. It could become a cash flow generated by talent that I wouldn't have used for anything else anyway. Jul 08 06 03:26 pm Link JustAnotherSara wrote: I actually pay attention to their photographers Jul 08 06 03:36 pm Link Jul 08 06 03:47 pm Link Hel Inferna wrote: Yes, but how many of these can photogs apply to? I (quickly) looked through them all and they didn't seem to mention hot photogs can get work. Jul 11 06 11:52 am Link Candy's blog is worth checking... http://candyposes.com/2006/07/not-cool- … girls.html I guess with absolute buyout, SG can do what they want with the shots, but I think I'm going to steer clear in the future. Jul 11 06 01:54 pm Link Bunnie Page wrote: Been there, done that baby girl.. SG is totally not worth it! I have a friend who still models for SG just for the moola, and that's exactly why they raised the pay for umemployed hotties like you to sell their souls to the mainstream alter porn market of America.. Jul 11 06 01:57 pm Link AdamtheJohnson wrote: Jul 11 06 06:12 pm Link Bunnie Page wrote: lol.. me 2 . . its weird . . I think its because I want to get PAID Jul 11 06 08:30 pm Link Tiara LeAnne wrote: Bunnie Page wrote: lol.. me 2 . . its weird . . I think its because I want to get PAID Ok, how about this...I'll set up a site where all you girls and photogs that want to get "PAID" can get paid as soon as the sets sell a membership. You each will get 5% of all memberships sold, and I'll get 90%... You'll still be getting a better deal than with SG. Jul 11 06 08:38 pm Link Just read their model agreement. If anyone signs that they truely are making a severe career limiting move! They basically have you in lock down for the period of the "run" + 2 years after it is taken down. Once on SG you can not longer be on any other similiar site. It also states they can re-sell as they see fit .. ect ect ect .... Crazy ....... Jul 11 06 08:48 pm Link AdamtheJohnson wrote: well its porn, that industry focuses on the model not the photog, because the pictures don't have to be done well, they can be, but its not the most important aspect... if it was alt-art not alt-porn it would be different. Jul 12 06 07:16 am Link Hel Inferna wrote: What I mean is, with all the negativity surrounding the agreement for SG I was looking at other options. And out of all the alt-porn sites you posted none of them seemed to offer paid services for photogs. So, even though the agreement might be crippling, there may not be (m)any similar options or photogs. Jul 12 06 10:59 am Link Craig Thomson wrote: There's so many other routes to go though. There's a million tattoo and piercing mags that are non-nude, there's promotion for tattoo shops and such for all the big conventions, there's calendars, etc, etc........there's so many other avenues they could do that would give them much more money and get them way more respect. Jul 12 06 09:11 pm Link Myla Chenoa wrote: Exactly. What she said. Jul 12 06 09:24 pm Link I have been planning on trying out for SG very soon, I've tried to read just about everything I can find on the Internet about SG, good and bad. The way I see it, its fairly classy (its definitely not hardcore), I have no desire to be on any other sites, and I have no plans of being a full time model. Personaly I think it'd be kick ass to be on a card in a deck. I am a painter, I'm in art school, at SG I cold use the traffic to sell my art. I don't need an ego boost, I love my body and have zero issues with nudity. Also the girls are hot and seem awesome, the events look like a ball, (what other porn site has sleep overs etc. for there girls?) and if the one and only guy that works there does call me a bad name, I don't mind. As far as photographers getting the short end of the stick goes, the way it seems to me is they incourage the models to either use one of SG's various photographers (one of them being one of the co-owners, who seems like a sweety), to take their own pictures, or get a friend to. And of course as a buissiness they can't allow girls who represent them (as models or anything else) to talk shit about them. If a McDonalds executive publicly spoke out about how aweful McDonalds is dontcha think he'd get fired so quick his head would spin? SG showcases the personality of the sexy ladies as much as it does there boobies. The sets are the girls own creation, they pick the clothes, do the make-up, come up with the sets and some times even take the pictures! I'm pleased with the fact that the photographers don't get that much credit, its all the girls work really. For 500 bucks for an afternoon of work can buy me a whole bunch of art supplies. Also they give out a prize of $1000 to the best set each WEEK. I good with that. Its not like I have to sleep with anyone, hell more people then I can count have seen my boobies for free! If any one can speak from experience and tell me why I shouldn't join PLEASE talk to me. I have yet to apply because I'm reading all I can about it first. If any of you have insight into anything I have not addressed, PM me or respond or something. Jul 14 06 09:52 am Link nevermind Jul 14 06 04:43 pm Link _Milk wrote: Well, you mentioned you didn't want to be on other sites and they sell their content to trashy porn sites. You have no control over where the content goes. Jul 14 06 09:08 pm Link Jul 14 06 09:54 pm Link this all really really disgust me about the SG thing. My friend went live on that site when there was less than 100 girls on there. She is now one of the girls involved in all the court battles just so that she can get onto better things and break away from that stupid contract. She was also majorly involved in the DVD they released, in which they promised her and the other girls a large cut of the profits from that release, and they never saw a dime. And like a girl mentioned on here before, her profile is still left up there w/ all her old pictures, as if shes still on the site. They originally deleted her, but then put her stuff back up in hopes to still keep fans coming back. Sooo ridiculous. Well now her and a few other girls have gone to GodsGirls.com. From what i understand this site is VERY selective. Not just any 18 year old tramp stamped whore can get on there. They have professional photogs that are paid for their services, and i think eventually the girls will get paid for their sets too (dont quote me on that). The treatment there is much better. Most of the girls are paid for their travel expenses since they are based in L.A. If any girl has any ambition to be an alternative nakey model, and wishes to be treated nicely, i strongly suggest to check out Godsgirls.com. Although make sure you have stunning photos, they are only looking for the best. Jul 16 06 09:57 am Link Catriona wrote: i would never sign that contract or model for SG. I hate it when i do a project then end up affiilated with them (just shot a video for the Dwarves and the SG girls were there too. we all had a great time and a lot of fun, but i'm just not an SG girl). Jul 16 06 11:21 am Link ...doublepost... Jul 16 06 11:38 am Link Any model who wants to get internet traffic and internet cashflow can control the entire environment herself and gain a following. That's the beauty of the internet. One person can do it. You don't NEED suicidegirls, godsgirls or anyone else... PM me if you want serious advice about how. Jul 16 06 11:39 am Link http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/new … 016155.asp http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea … 2154825750 yes, yes, very empowering, not exploitative or corrupt at all. i cringe every time i see a girl say she wants to be on SG, because it would be "cool". people talk about SG as if it started alternative modeling and it's the only place any alt model can go to be accepted. oh, please. spare me the sob stories. Jul 18 06 03:42 am Link Some links I've found: http://www.myspace.com/boycott_suicidegirls http://www.myspace.com/the_sg_debate I know a friend of mine would really like to do Suicide Girls. I think after reading a lot of this now, I will try and convince her otherwise. Jul 25 06 01:34 am Link Very informative thread. I'd inquired about shooting for SG over a year ago- but never came across a model with the look, so I didn't sign the papers, and was quite busy with models I've met. I did shoot a couple former SG's and they also were fed up with SG policies. Glad the're alternatives for gals nowdays. I do like the attitude of the girls there, but management sounds totalitarian- so I welcome this discussion- I'd probably shoot a set- just for fun- if a gal really wanted to be there....and I could use a few images.......as it's different from my style....but absolutely not on contract. I'll try most anything I haven't yet done for the experience. Still, this legal crap...of theirs....... Jul 31 06 10:37 am Link Very interesting articles- thanx for sharing them all. Jul 31 06 10:44 am Link I would love to shoot with a local SG girl, but wouldn't touch her with a ten foot pole. Besides, their damn panties wouldn't fit most photographers. Jul 31 06 10:47 am Link |
maybe thats because I am one. Albertine is pretty amazing and of course LP 
