Mercy wrote:
I work with a competing website to SG, but I know a few SGs and I think this thread is a bit silly. If you've done your homework and decided that it was a good fit for you go for it. No one should bash you for that. Talk with some current SGs and see what their takes are on it and how they feel. My personal favorite is Vivid Vivka. Google her. Just know that there are other sites out there should SG not be your best match and good luck.

~Mercy

No, when it comes to contracts, with SG or anyone else, I would much prefer to advise the OP [or a photographer] to find out how her [their] lawyer feels about them.

In general terms, however, coming here exposes the OP to a lot of different people who have put SG and their agreements under a very great amount of scrutiny over a long period of time.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

No, when it comes to contracts, with SG or anyone else, I would much prefer to advise the OP to find out how her lawyer feels about them.

Studio36

Did you miss the part about doing her homework? Or are you simply ignoring it to continue an argument? Because with all contracts that's part of it. She should ALSO talk with current model and look at the members and site as a whole. You can say "NO" all you'd like but what your preference is isn't always going to be others.

~Mercy

Mercy wrote:
Did you miss the part about doing her homework? Or are you simply ignoring it to continue an argument? Because with all contracts that's part of it. She should ALSO talk with current model and look at the members and site as a whole. You can say "NO" all you'd like but what your preference is isn't always going to be others.

~Mercy

I have never cared much for "testimonials" from satisfied customers. They are usually as useless as tits on a boar hog. Not at all unlike soliciting job references from friends and family.

My business is in the law, and I only believe and act on what the actual contracts say. You can probably guess that I do not like theirs. Ya' think!

Studio36

Jade Aurora wrote:
Hello everyone.

This Saturday, I will be shooting my first set to submit to Suicide Girls. Here's to hoping I get accepted

ahhhh my dream!!! good luck girl

C h a r l e s  D wrote:
Nope.  Failed again.  You've done a good job of explaining the origins of the word. Since oranges didn't exist in the western world, but apples certainly did, they described it as best they could when they were first brought to Europe.   Now, cite your source, and type the definition of the word, not the origin of the fruit.

Here, I'll help you.  I can see Internet research is very, very difficult for you. 

From Webster's
Definition of ORANGE

1
a : a globose berry with a yellowish to reddish-orange rind and a sweet edible pulp
b : any of various small evergreen citrus trees (genus Citrus) with glossy ovate leaves, hard yellow wood, fragrant white flowers, and fruits that are oranges
2
: any of several trees or fruits resembling the orange
3
: any of a group of colors that are between red and yellow in hue

From Oxford English Dictionary:

Definition of orange
noun
1a large round juicy citrus fruit with a tough bright reddish-yellow rind:
eat plenty of oranges
[mass noun]:
a slice of orange
[as modifier]:
orange juice
[mass noun] chiefly British a drink made from or flavoured with oranges:
a vodka and orange

I'm so damn happy you didn't quote, or even link, Wikipedia.

I'm also happy the OP is reconsidering this shoot.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
One model supports it, vs multiple models and other people against it.

Sounds legit.

One model being a part of the said site VS people who never logged once in it.

P I X I E wrote:
One model who has been a SG for barely 2 years, too. VS feedback from an ex-SG friend of mine that was part of the site for about 4 years. Hmm.

You talk of a difference of just two years like it's a decade, c'mon!
And I'm curious to know who your friend is, what's her name on SG and if she walked out by herself or someone kicked her off... oh, and if she does exist!

Laura BrokenDoll wrote:
The only thing you can really complain about is how fuckin' hard has become getting your photosets bought by the Staff: so many girls submit tons of pictures everyday, and the competition is tough. But left aside the fact you let 'em publish your pics for free until they decide to buy 'em or not

studio36uk wrote:
Point one! You the model might NEVER get paid!

Yes, this is a risk the model knows when she submits her set - don't get me wrong, I know it may sounds stupid, and maybe it's true just where I live but... I've noticed that getting published on that site has helped my career growing: I've got interviews, contacts, gigs out of it. So it worth the "pain in the a**" of submitting few set that didn't get bought before getting one published and being paid for it.
After all, I've sent pictures I like anyway - I have nothing with having 'em online for the world to see.

Laura BrokenDoll wrote:
(read carefully: publish, not own... the copyright stays in the photographer's hands until they send you a paycheck!), I can't see anything to complain about.

studio36uk wrote:
I will believe it when I see it. What I have seen is an agreement that the photographer signs at the time the images are submitted to SG that says something completely different.

I know what their FAQ says. It conflicts with this. BUT this is what the photographer signs and the FAQ means nothing.

Absolutely nothing here says that the rights transfer is effective ONLY when the model [or photographer] gets paid. On the contrary, THIS is the ONLY legal document in play, and this says explicitly that the transfer is effective, and PERMANENT, when this agreement ^^^ is signed by the photographer and submitted with the photographs.

If they are telling you, as the model, what you claim [about the copyright ownership] they are lying through their teeth!

If the photographer believes it, and relying on what it says in the Photographer FAQ, they are not reading, or simply do not understand, this fucking document.

Laura, I know that you are Italian and your photographers are likely Italian as well, I suspect that neither of you quite understand the critical importance of this document written in English and based on US law, not written in Italian and not based on Italian law. There is even less reason for our native English speaking, and US based, photographers to believe anything they claim about it... but some apparently do.

On a point, you're right: I'm sure in a court nobody would consider what written on a online page when there's a paper signed.
While assuring you that I started studying and speaking english at 3 y.o., and probably know it better than some native speakers on here, I can tell you that some people would simply do it without caring that much about the copyright and all: talking about money, how much do you think a SG set would worth? To me, not so many dollars... so why getting worried about it?
If you don't like the site contents or their policy, you're free to say no to whatever implication with them.
But if a photographer doesn't mind helping a friend in trying to become a SG, or keeping her SG-related career, I don't see the trouble in it - 'cause that's exactly what decided to do the last photographer who shot a set with me for the site: he signed the paper and gave me the pics, aware that he couldn't publish 'em without the SG watermark on it nor selling it to anybody else.
I know, this may sounds like a waste of time for the majority of photographers: why spending time taking and editing images and not being free to use 'em wherever you want?! Well... you're right... but then nobody force you to shoot for SG. Don't do it if you don't want to - and don't do it if you're a newbie who thinks it would lead to fame and money.
Do it if you like the idea, the concept and the model. Nothing else - it's more a "personal choice", rather than a good or bad photography business, to me.

Jade Aurora wrote:
What about submitting to Zivity?

Zivity has a better reputation and from what I understand, much more freedom (as well as artistic freedom) than signing with SG.

Do some research, the internet is a wonderful place it's best if you get info yourself before you ask for opinions, so you have an idea of what things entail.

Good luck.

Laura BrokenDoll wrote:
Do it if you like the idea, the concept and the model. Nothing else - it's more a "personal choice", rather than a good or bad photography business, to me.

Laura, I just hate, on principle, to see people engaged in "a race to the bottom."

If you do it with your eyes wide open then that is a personal choice; but if someone else proposes to do it, or in the case of photographers is invited to do it, based only on the false promises that SG seems to offer, and the out and out lies they tell in their FAQs on their site, and that is something repeatedly illustrated on this forum, then that is a completely different matter.

Studio36

Laura BrokenDoll wrote:
One model being a part of the said site VS people who never logged once in it.

I've never been to a crackhouse either, that doesn't mean I'm going to go visit one because someone told me it's not as bad as everyone says.

Viral Photo wrote:
All I'm gonna do is drink my coffee and just watch the magic happen with this thread.

Half & half and two packages of sugar raw please.

Laura BrokenDoll wrote:

One model being a part of the said site VS people who never logged once in it.

Ya know.....you HAVE to defend SG, or else you'd have to admit you made a mistake. Human nature says you're gonna do the former.....even in the face of all evidence otherwise.

I've logged on there once....more than once, back when. I got sent their contracts...looked them over, wasn't overly excited.

Handed them to my attorney. His response? You're not REALLY going to sign this are you? I don't think you're that dumb.

Frankly what some of the folks who have posted on here said, are spot on.

And their newer policies about "hopefuls" are just a crock of shit. Yet the lemmings keep on marching to the sea.

Small Fruit Pits wrote:

Ya know.....you HAVE to defend SG, or else you'd have to admit you made a mistake. Human nature says you're gonna do the former.....even in the face of all evidence otherwise.

I've logged on there once....more than once, back when. I got sent their contracts...looked them over, wasn't overly excited.

Handed them to my attorney. His response? You're not REALLY going to sign this are you? I don't think you're that dumb.

Frankly what some of the folks who have posted on here said, are spot on.

And their newer policies about "hopefuls" are just a crock of shit. Yet the lemmings keep on marching to the sea.

+1 on all points

studio36uk wrote:
I have never cared much for "testimonials" from satisfied customers. They are usually as useless as tits on a boar hog. Not at all unlike soliciting job references from friends and family.

My business is in the law, and I only believe and act on what the actual contracts say. You can probably guess that I do not like theirs. Ya' think!

Studio36

Pallas Manula wrote:
Useless?! I just saw a boar hog titty set last week!

Must have been on SG, yes?

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Must have been on SG, yes?

Studio36

Frances Jewel wrote:

guys masturbate to it, it's porn. lol

so since i touch myself to your pictures it's porn? o.o' huh. who would have thunk.

EmGii wrote:

so since i touch myself to your pictures it's porn? o.o' huh. who would have thunk.

I think that would depend on 'where' you touch yourself!   (lol)

EmGii wrote:
so since i touch myself to your pictures it's porn? o.o' huh. who would have thunk.

PhotographybyT wrote:
I think that would depend on 'where' you touch yourself!   (lol)

Touch a touch a touch me!
I wanna be dirty.
Thrill me, chill me, fufill me,
Creature of the night!

Then if anything grows, while you pose
I'll oil you up and rub you down
(down, down, down)
And thats just one small fraction
Of the main attraction
you need a friendly hand
And I need action!

Touch a touch a touch me!
I wanna be dirty.
Thrill me, chill me, fufill me,
Creature of the night!

- - - Rocky Horror Show [Janet sings: "touch'a touch'a touch me"]

ROTFLMAO

Studio36

Juniper Tree Photo wrote:
Good luck withy ruining your modeling career before it even gets off the ground, and by trying to get on a site that is outdated and passe....

That was rude!

P I X I E wrote:
OP, people are trying to tell you that being a SG isn't all that fun and rainbows and unicorns... That's all. It's not really worth it most of the time.

She didn't ask that though if anything. She wanted people to know how happy she was about submitting photos to SG.

Frances Jewel wrote:

guys masturbate to it, it's porn. lol

haha.