Connor Photography wrote:
I am thinking to shoot a set for a model.  I know SG has not had much favorable review on MM.  Their contract sucks.  But I don't really care the copy right for just one set. 

I just want to do one and say I did it once.  Have you done any in the past?

That's not what many people complain about the contract. Unless it has changed, if you shoot a set for them, you are not able to publish any other alt images with anyone else for 2 years.

AJScalzitti wrote:
Seriously if you want to work for free you can, but I will double their offer if you wash my car.  Think of the zero dollars, doubled to 00, and all the exposure you would gain.  I am sure everyone around my house would be happy to hire you for the same to wash their cars.

Before you know you would control the market on free car washes in the Atlanta metro area...

^^^^ THIS ^^^^

+1,000

Connor Photography wrote:
I am thinking to shoot a set for a model.  I know SG has not had much favorable review on MM.  Their contract sucks.  But I don't really care the copy right for just one set. 

I just want to do one and say I did it once.  Have you done any in the past?

I have not and refuse to. I want that business model to die a quick and painful death.

Their contract is complete and utter shit ... let me summarize it.

1- You give them a complete copyright assignment FOR NO MONEY AT ALL.

2- They use your images on their website (again with no compensation to you or the model).

3- IF your set is chosen as a set of the day you'll get 100$ + 100$ if you did appropriate post work. That is IF your set gets chosen as a set of the day.

4- You agree to not shoot for a competing site

This is taken from their Photogrpahers FAQ:
"7.30 You mention "competing sites" in your agreements. What does that mean?

There are only a handful of sites that we would consider to be competing sites.  Basically if it is a site that features nude and tattooed, pierced or otherwise alternative models and has a paid "members" only section, we would consider it to be a competing site. If there are any sites you have questions about, please e-mail [email protected] with a link to the site and a translation if it is not in English. More than likely we will have no problem with you shooting for them, but please check with us first if you think there may be a problem."

So if you do a shoot and submit it to them, you are no longer allowed to SHOOT for other "similar" sites. As a freelance photographer ... this should worry you! Imagine being contacted by GodsGirls or other similar site and having to refuse their work because a year and a half ago you did ONE SET that you DIDN'T GET PAID FOR (was not chosen) for SS! It's complete and utter lunacy!

So to summarize my summary: You get little or potentially NO pay for your work, they get a license to do practically anything they want with your set and you agree to a ridiculous non compete agreement!

Why in the hell would you shoot for them?

Eric Lefebvre wrote:
So if you do a shoot and submit it to them, you are no longer allowed to SHOOT for other "similar" sites. As a freelance photographer ... this should worry you! Imagine being contacted by GodsGirls or other similar site and having to refuse their work because a year and a half ago you did ONE SET that you DIDN'T GET PAID FOR (was not chosen) for SS! It's complete and utter lunacy!

I've turned down a few shoots for models who wanted to submit to them for this exact reason. Out of curiosity though, how is this even legal? I know SG is very sue-happy but how can this not be considered restriction of trade?

Shot By Adam wrote:
I've turned down a few shoots for models who wanted to submit to them for this exact reason. Out of curiosity though, how is this even legal? I know SG is very sue-happy but how can this not be considered restriction of trade?

It most likely isn't legally enforceable ... companies put non-enforceable clauses in their contracts all the time gambling on people thinking that because it's in a contract it's legal or betting that the average citizen won't want to deal with the headache and financial hardship of contesting the contract in court. It's not just little rinky dinky sites like SG that does this but also large, well established corporations.

Many states (in the US) and provinces (in Canada) don't recognize non-compete clauses and even those that do would find this one ridiculous. You agree to a non compete for 2 years for little (200$) to no money?

As far as I know, SG has never won a court case based on this non-compete clause but they still have it in their contract.

Eric Lefebvre wrote:

I have not and refuse to. I want that business model to die a quick and painful death.

Their contract is complete and utter shit ... let me summarize it.

1- You give them a complete copyright assignment FOR NO MONEY AT ALL.

2- They use your images on their website (again with no compensation to you or the model).

3- IF your set is chosen as a set of the day you'll get 100$ + 100$ if you did appropriate post work. That is IF your set gets chosen as a set of the day.

4- You agree to not shoot for a competing site

This is taken from their Photogrpahers FAQ:
"7.30 You mention "competing sites" in your agreements. What does that mean?

There are only a handful of sites that we would consider to be competing sites.  Basically if it is a site that features nude and tattooed, pierced or otherwise alternative models and has a paid "members" only section, we would consider it to be a competing site. If there are any sites you have questions about, please e-mail [email protected] with a link to the site and a translation if it is not in English. More than likely we will have no problem with you shooting for them, but please check with us first if you think there may be a problem."

So if you do a shoot and submit it to them, you are no longer allowed to SHOOT for other "similar" sites. As a freelance photographer ... this should worry you! Imagine being contacted by GodsGirls or other similar site and having to refuse their work because a year and a half ago you did ONE SET that you DIDN'T GET PAID FOR (was not chosen) for SS! It's complete and utter lunacy!

So to summarize my summary: You get little or potentially NO pay for your work, they get a license to do practically anything they want with your set and you agree to a ridiculous non compete agreement!

Why in the hell would you shoot for them?

+1

Connor Photography wrote:
I just want to do one and say I did it once.  Have you done any in the past?

yeah,  but usually it goes along in context with something awesome..like climbing a mountain or hang gliding in the nude.

One day...

GPS Studio Services wrote:
Yet despite it all, people keep shooting for them, duh!

People will shoot anything for 5 minutes of 'fame'
Photographers will think twice before being tied into harsh contracts

T

Select Models wrote:
Shooting Suicide Girls?

I wouldn't even consider it... I mean come onnnnnn... they are suicide girls... right?... they'll probably end up shootin themselves!...

Oh!

Eric Lefebvre wrote:
... Many states (in the US) and provinces (in Canada) don't recognize non-compete clauses and even those that do would find this one ridiculous. You agree to a non compete for 2 years for little (200$) to no money

There is an interesting potential sting in the tail for SG on that issue. If anyone wants to look it up and have a good chuckle to themselves Google "Oregon Code non-competition 2008" and observe the then newly added consideration [compensation] provision. If they want to enforce that you can quite rightly tell them "if that's what you want then fuck you, pay me."

Bring 'em on!

Studio36

ybfoto wrote:
there are photographers on here who currently shoot SG sets...why not ask them as opposed to taking advise from people who never have shot for them.

Thats like telling someone yo ignore anti drug advice from someones whos never done drugs and go ask an addict instead. I dont need to shoot my veines full of heroin to know its a bad idea.

studio36uk wrote:

There is an interesting potential sting in the tail for SG on that issue. If anyone wants to look it up and have a good chuckle to themselves Google "Oregon Code non-competition 2008" and observe the then newly added consideration [compensation] provision. If they want to enforce that you can quite rightly tell them "if that's what you want then fuck you, pay me."

Bring 'em on!

Studio36

The problem with this is that they have proven to be quite litigious in the past. The additional problem with this is they have saved a lot of money by not paying often for their images so they have (allegedly) plenty to burn on lawsuits.  I have two law degrees (civil and common law) and bar exams passed and all that good stuff and I would not deliberately take them on. Even before Oregon, on paper it was already worth it to challenge their no-compete clause. In practice, there are much better investments you can make with your time/money.  I've done one SG shoot many years ago (2005? were they around that long ago? how time flies) using the model's P&S camera and someone's ghetto basement apartment with morning sun pouring in the window.  Never looked back. I knew it was a throwaway.

Eric Lefebvre wrote:

Thats like telling someone yo ignore anti drug advice from someones whos never done drugs and go ask an addict instead. I dont need to shoot my veines full of heroin to know its a bad idea.

its not even remotely close to that....nice attempt to being clever

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

The problem with this is that they have proven to be quite litigious in the past. The additional problem with this is they have saved a lot of money by not paying often for their images so they have (allegedly) plenty to burn on lawsuits.  I have two law degrees (civil and common law) and bar exams passed and all that good stuff and I would not deliberately take them on. Even before Oregon, on paper it was already worth it to challenge their no-compete clause. In practice, there are much better investments you can make with your time/money.  I've done one SG shoot many years ago (2005? were they around that long ago? how time flies) using the model's P&S camera and someone's ghetto basement apartment with morning sun pouring in the window.  Never looked back. I knew it was a throwaway.

Really did it make the front page...can you post the set link?

ybfoto wrote:

Really did it make the front page...can you post the set link?

set link for what?

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

set link for what?

for the set you shot for the model and sent in to SG

ybfoto wrote:
for the set you shot for the model and sent in to SG

is that what you meant?  it was a very unobvious troll. And for those who took this question seriously I have no clue if it made the front page 7 years ago. I wouldnt even know how to find that girl.  she could be dead or married to ybphoto for all I know.  I just filled out the forms and gave her the images and she thanked me later.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

is that what you meant?  it was a very unobvious troll.

no actually it wasnt I am legitimately curious to see the set you shot for SG...do you remember the models name by chance?

ybfoto wrote:

no actually it wasnt I am legitimately curious to see the set you shot for SG...do you remember the models name by chance?

my apologies.  its not something I was proud (or not proud of). It was just a favour for a friend and possible lover at the time. I honestly cant remember her real name ATM. It will come to me.  SG was very different then. I was told by a local SG that the way to get accepted was 'lots of buttcrack, more than lots' and since the person who told me was already in, I followed her advice. never shot so much buttcrack in my life. I'm sure what it takes to get in has changed 30 times since then.  we are talking 2005 for sure.
I'm not a member of SG so I don't know how the search works. If you can search geographically for models in Gatineau from that time period she would be one of them.  The ones with the French sounding names would be not her.
She was french but chose an anglo nick.

Don Anderson wrote:
I tried Suicide girls for a model that wanted to be there. Never made a dime. Put her on Zivity and she is still making money.  I've been shooting for Zivity coming up to 4 years and I get a check every quarter.

I dont know anyone who will retire on it but its beer and pizza money for sure. sometimes...it's only one beer

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
my apologies.  its not something I was proud (or not proud of). It was just a favour for a friend and possible lover at the time. I honestly cant remember her real name ATM. It will come to me.  SG was very different then. I was told by a local SG that the way to get accepted was 'lots of buttcrack, more than lots' and since the person who told me was already in, I followed her advice. never shot so much buttcrack in my life. I'm sure what it takes to get in has changed 30 times since then.  we are talking 2005 for sure.
I'm not a member of SG so I don't know how the search works. If you can search geographically for models in Gatineau from that time period she would be one of them.  The ones with the French sounding names would be not her.
She was french but chose an anglo nick.

lol buttcracks actually it hasnt changed...kewl beans

ybfoto wrote:

lol buttcracks actually it hasnt changes...kewl beans

stillllll?  you would think they would change it up so people dont get bored and shoot intense high contrast clits or something?  it's been seven years since and every time a model turns around for a shot like that I cringe (even if they have clothing on).