John Jebbia wrote:
What I'm shooting with her would bare absolutely no resemblance to what I would do for her SG set. So they would never be able to come back and claim my project as belonging to them. The relationship would be between her and SG. Not me and SG.

And... GO!

Be careful, the SG contract has something along these lines that even photos NOT delivered to them but taken during the shoot are considered their property.

See, even if NOT delivered to SG you have to sign with them BEFORE you shoot, not just HER.

They also make it clear that you cannot pay the model and the model cannot pay YOU for the shoot. Not sure if a trade for time would be included in that.

I am no legal expert, I'm just saying... be careful!

RMT

Sarah Crane Photography wrote:
You're the photographer, not her daddy. If she wants to use those pictures for whatever purpose within what you agreed on, what do you care? If she really wants to try for SG, she'll find some other photographer to take the pictures for her.

Just do it, let people make their own decisions and profit from your own at the same time.

Yes. I understand that. But the real question I'm asking is would you just hand over the pictures to her to do what she pleases (SG or not) regardless of any licensing issues... In other words, whatever she wants to do with them....

If you were getting something of considerable value to YOU.

John Jebbia wrote:
I have this model. Well, not really a model. More a girl I know who I want to use for a project of mine. Well, in the course of conversation she mentioned that she wants to shoot a Suicide Girl's set. Now bare in mind, I'm not sure if that means she wants to shoot for Suicide Girls or if it means she wants to shoot something Suicide Girls style. I'll clarify it with her when I meet with her this weekend.

Anyways, I did mention to her the issues about Suicide Girls. To be honest, I don't understand the issues myself. But I just mentioned they have a bad reputation and left it at that. I suggested what about God's Girls as an alternative and left it at that. Like I said.. We're going to discuss it further this weekend.

After our conversation, I thought about it. What if I just shot her for Suicide Girls and just gave her the photos to use as she wishes. Whether that be to submit them to SG or just as a keepsake. Whatever. I certainly have no use for the images.

I will be getting something of value. Her work on my own project. I think it would be worth just shooting her SG set and letting her do with what she pleases. I mean.. given the quality of most of the stuff on there, it would be pretty easy to shoot... snap.. snap...snap. No real expertise required on my end.

What I'm shooting with her would bare absolutely no resemblance to what I would do for her SG set. So they would never be able to come back and claim my project as belonging to them. The relationship would be between her and SG. Not me and SG.

So. The question. If someone REALLY wanted you to shoot them for SG, and you were getting something of equal, or even greater value in return would you bite the bullet and just shoot it?

And... GO!

Well at least I get a free membership.

RMT Photography wrote:
See, even if NOT delivered to SG you have to sign with them BEFORE you shoot, not just HER. They also make it clear that you cannot pay the model and the model cannot pay YOU for the shoot. Not sure if a trade for time would be included in that.

I am no legal expert, I'm just saying... be careful!

RMT

I ain't signing shit except my photographer's release to HER. What she does from there is her relationship with them. Not mine.


I think.

John Jebbia wrote:

Yes. I understand that. But the real question I'm asking is would you just hand over the pictures to her to do what she pleases (SG or not) regardless of any licensing issues... In other words, whatever she wants to do with them....

If you were getting something of considerable value to YOU.

well yeah though I have a hard time figuring out what could be so valuable.


a 5 acre ranch.
a bmw
1month vacation
process and disease free mindless but hot sex for a year

sure I'd shoot a stinking SG set.

does SG even exist anymore? It's so jumped the shark if so....

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
well yeah though I have a hard time figuring out what could be so valuable.


a 5 acre ranch.
a bmw
1month vacation
process and disease free mindless but hot sex for a year

sure I'd shoot a stinking SG set.

does SG even exist anymore? It's so jumped the shark if so....

Oh.. come on. These are basically snapshots (going from what i've seen on their site). Not like I'd be pouring my heart and soul into shooting them.

John Jebbia wrote:

I ain't signing shit except my photographer's release to HER. What she does from there is her relationship with them. Not mine.


I think.

I believe you ALSO have to sign the release... especially if you want to get paid.

Of course, then you'd be agreeing not to shoot for any other of their competitors for two years, a decision you'd have to make.

I was considering it, even got the application in, and the model flaked on me. I considered it STILL, for another model, because I never thought I'd have the opportunity to shoot for their competitors. In the end though, I never did because compensation is not guaranteed and the models aren't allowed to pay.

RMT

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
I can't, just don't shoot in sets like they want, I suck.

just get really drunk with the model, have her strip and then pose like alt.girls gone wild, if she doesn't have tons of ink be sure to have some graffiti or dirty walls the background, have her practice "a pensive but alluring" come hither look and then drink some more.

Broken Doll wrote:
I really don't understand the issue with SG - their contract has changed!

Ahhhh......no. Just a wee bit.

John Jebbia wrote:

I ain't signing shit except my photographer's release to HER. What she does from there is her relationship with them. Not mine.


I think.

Unless they have changed recently, you would need to sign their paperwork. That's the big catch there...

Broken Doll wrote:
I really don't understand the issue with SG - their contract has changed!

I still think there's been enough bad word of mouth alone to keep a lot of photogs far away from anything that involves SG.

Vasilisa-nude wrote:
SG have modified their contract quite a bit since the whole Apnea/Lithium picnic drama, that and they pay a lot better than their competitors ($500 v $80 per set....) and that's each for the model and photographer,I have no idea what GG pays but DN doesn't pay photographers at all. If you want to make money from shooting alt sets, SG is usually the best bet.

I think their relationships with photographers have changed too - you don't have to be an official SG photographer to get paid by them or submit a set to them. Obviously, they screwed up pretty badly but they seem to have made amends, at least for now.

300 is what DN is paying me a set

Instinct Images wrote:

7. Non-Competition. Photographer agrees that for two (2) years after the full execution of this Assignment, Photographer will not directly or indirectly: (i) sell or otherwise provide Internet, photographic, video, film, audio, text, design, artistic or other creative content to any “SG Competitor”; or (ii) own, manage, operate, join, control, finance or participate in the ownership, management, operation, control or financing of, or be connected as an officer, director, employee, partner, member, principal, agent, representative, consultant or otherwise, to any “SG Competitor”. “SG Competitor” means any person, entity or organization other than SG that competes with SG, including but not limited to any person, entity or organization that creates, develops, manufactures, produces, distributes, markets, licenses or sells events, products or services that compete with SG.


Two years non-compete just for submitting a set of pictures????

YIKES

That clause alone from anyone would make me laugh in their face.

hbutz New York wrote:
Suicide Girls contracts force both the model and the photographer to work exclusively with/for them for a period of several years i.e. you both need to give up your career and your business.  Good luck with that.  I guess that's why they call it suicide.

And yet, all the little generic-tatted/pierced girls want to shoot for them. What in the hell is the allure?

but their contracts have changed!

bullshit. The same people run the company. The same people who thought their business practices were fine and dandy back when they were laughably offensive.

Think of it this way... If you *almost* shot with a photog who you found out required you to bang him after the shoot, and when you declined, he slagged you off to everyone he met, would you really believe it if he tried to shoot with you again later, claiming to have cleaned up his act? Fuck no. you'd run the other way. The same no-ethics dirtbags run that toilet of a site. Stay far away. Or suggest a worthy competitor.

John Jebbia wrote:
I suggested what about God's Girls as an alternative and left it at that. Like I said.. We're going to discuss it further this weekend.
And... GO!

John, unless you are already a photographer for GG you may want to steer her in a different direction (yet again). I know first hand that they use only photographers that they have screened and accepted as their own. You might possibly suggest Deviant Nation? Just a suggestion.

Brodi Avalon wrote:
You will most likely not get paid, and neither will she.

The new thing they have is " member review ". They put your set in full up for all members to see and vote on. If it gets a lot of votes they then put it up on the main pages...which btw this rarely happens. Unless you're a big name in SG, you wont get anything most likely. They have found yet another way to get free content from models. And your model probably isnt fully and SG yet, probably just what they call a hopeful...and all hopefuls submit full sets for the member review. So free content, you both will most likely get nothing.

Exactly. The contract is ok now but they milk you for free content.

John Jebbia wrote:
I ain't signing shit except my photographer's release to HER. What she does from there is her relationship with them. Not mine.


I think.

And give her your RAW files and any indication you took the photos. You may have took them but you will no longer own any copyright nor be able to use them, ever.

And I would look very careful at that release. Most likley it's just an SG release. Don't sign anything.

Vasilisa-nudes wrote:
SG have modified their contract quite a bit since the whole Apnea/Lithium picnic drama, that and they pay a lot better than their competitors ($500 v $80 per set....) and that's each for the model and photographer,I have no idea what GG pays but DN doesn't pay photographers at all. If you want to make money from shooting alt sets, SG is usually the best bet.

I think their relationships with photographers have changed too - you don't have to be an official SG photographer to get paid by them or submit a set to them. Obviously, they screwed up pretty badly but they seem to have made amends, at least for now.

SG contracts are still shit as long as they hang onto the Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation clauses. Maybe you should read them again.