Photographer
Morbid Rockwell
Posts: 593
Fresno, California, US
I do believe I've heard recently that SG has bumped up the amount they'll give the girls for sets. The power and individuality that SG is upselling as the main motif of their site, not porn mind you, seems to come out of girls more easily with bigger dollar signs.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
RBDesign wrote:
It looks like they are paying models $500 if the model has/gets her own photog.
RB James Jackson wrote:
So the only way that a model can get $500 is by gipping a photographer out of the $200 that would be due him in any other SG situation?
Nice... Actually, that's always been their "Sub Rosa" policy. Essentially, they tell the models to promise the photographer half the money and then just not pay them. Their rationale is that anybody hard up enough to sign away rights for a measly two bills probably won't take a model to small claims court.
Model
Delilah
Posts: 19
MacKeesport, Pennsylvania, US
James Jackson wrote:
There are dozens... if not hundreds of alt sites out there... all wiling to have "plus sized, pierced, tattoed model"s agreed. And not just sites that advertise plus sized models and feature maybe 10 plus sized models out of over 1000 (plus, you aren't restricted by non-competes, so you can showcase your photos more often, by being on other sites.).
Photographer
Hola Guapa Photography
Posts: 46
Summerville, South Carolina, US
Yes, I've heard they pay the models $500 per set. IF they accept the set, some models have said that they only get 1 or 2 sets approved per year. Lots of these young models believe that they will be making $500 every two weeks or so, but that's furthest from the truth.
Photographer
aesthetix photo
Posts: 10558
Macon, Georgia, US
Rossi Photography wrote:
I've done one shoot for SG. They only pay the photog $200 and take all rights.
I've had two from myspace contact me for an SG shoot in the last couple weeks. I've had two local girls ask me about SG photos as well over the past 10 days or so. I'll inquire as to why (other than the obvious).
Photographer
SKA Photography
Posts: 142
Portland, Oregon, US
Surreal Eye Studio wrote:
I've had two local girls ask me about SG photos as well over the past 10 days or so. I'll inquire as to why (other than the obvious). Yep, they want ALL the rights to the photos, I wanted to do some stuff for them until I read their contract, I wouldn't touch that with a 50ft pole! And please do excuse if this is a repeat, I didn't read through this whole post 
Photographer
aesthetix photo
Posts: 10558
Macon, Georgia, US
SKA Photography wrote:
Yep, they want ALL the rights to the photos, I wanted to do some stuff for them until I read their contract, I wouldn't touch that with a 50ft pole! And please do excuse if this is a repeat, I didn't read through this whole post Honestly, when it comes to some SG models, I'd gladly take the $200 and they can keep the damn pix LOL
Photographer
StephanieLM
Posts: 930
San Francisco, California, US
James Jackson wrote:
So the only way that a model can get $500 is by gipping a photographer out of the $200 that would be due him in any other SG situation?
Nice... Bingo! My only experience with SG was when a good friend of mine got accepted on the site and wanted me to shoot her set. She told me she'd get paid $300 and we'd split it 50/50. Did some research, found that she was ripping me off (plus the fact that sg totally screws everyone involved) and said no. Issues surrounding that argument ended that friendship and ended it badly.
I'm bitter toward that damn site to this day.
Model
Loretta Lightningbolt
Posts: 4127
DEVILS ELBOW, Missouri, US
Yuck. Worst contracts ever, and half the girls on there are just not photogenic anyway. I've never liked them. http://www.godsgirls.com This site is SO MUCH better,
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
James Jackson wrote:
So the only way that a model can get $500 is by gipping a photographer out of the $200 that would be due him in any other SG situation?
Nice... StarlaMeris wrote:
Bingo! My only experience with SG was when a good friend of mine got accepted on the site and wanted me to shoot her set. She told me she'd get paid $300 and we'd split it 50/50. Did some research, found that she was ripping me off (plus the fact that sg totally screws everyone involved) and said no. Issues surrounding that argument ended that friendship and ended it badly.
I'm bitter toward that damn site to this day. As I stated above, that's what SG tells all models to do. All things being equal, anyone who'd screw you like that just to get their picture on the internet isn't really your friend anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much.
There is a model here in Pittsburgh I used to work with before she got "set happy" and basically tried to use me continuously. We did some really good work together, but I eventually realized that it wasn't worth all the agone. She still contacts me every few months, and I just say "no" and hang up.
Moral: "Set Girls" are not models...no matter what they think they are.
Model
Envy Kitten
Posts: 233
Fresno, California, US
James Jackson wrote:
Correction... as of last report they pay $300 to the girl, $200 to the photographer. when ive gotten bulletins onm y myspace that say they up the pay to 500 a set::
not if some of that is going to the photographer it is something therh not making people aware of
i aaumed that the pay raise was for the girls
Photographer
Kinetic Photography
Posts: 517
so for the people who like Suicide Girls, what is the appeal ?
Photographer
aesthetix photo
Posts: 10558
Macon, Georgia, US
Kinetic Photography wrote:
so for the people who like Suicide Girls, what is the appeal ? Seeing girls that I've gotten debaucherous with before they were famous Suicide Girls.
13 so far
Photographer
Southern Image Photo
Posts: 10021
Garner, North Carolina, US
RBDesign wrote:
News flash, lots and lots of content companys and web sites pay you for shoots. You can find the models just about anywhere (like here). Last but not least you can be a terrible photographer depending on what content people are looking for, or you need to be really really good. It all depends on who your market is.
The one thing you have to be is prolific :-)
RB Woo hoo! Define "prolific" and whadya have to do to get in contact with these sites?
:^)
Model
Loretta Lightningbolt
Posts: 4127
DEVILS ELBOW, Missouri, US
As I've said before...yuck.
One of my good friends has been with SG for almost 4 years..but I still don't see the appeal.
With the exception of Lithium Picnic and a few others, the photography is awful.
There are better alternative modeling sites out there! TONS of them.
Photographer
aesthetix photo
Posts: 10558
Macon, Georgia, US
SickShooter wrote:
There are better alternative modeling sites out there! TONS of them. Has anyone compiled a list of these sites, specifically the ones that are more model/photographer friendly than the others? I'd be curious to take a look at such a list if it existed....
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Kinetic Photography wrote:
so for the people who like Suicide Girls, what is the appeal ? Essentially, it's the equivalent of that girl who works at the coffee shop that won't talk to you, or the girl who dances by herself at goth night or the girl you see at all the punk shows but don't have the nerve to talk to -- naked. Basically SGs are just GenY's version of cheerleaders. It's the same basic fantasy as Playboy is for mainstream males...just tattooed and pierced.
C'mon...don't tell me you couldn't figure this out. You're just playing Devil's Advocate, right?
Model
Loretta Lightningbolt
Posts: 4127
DEVILS ELBOW, Missouri, US
Surreal Eye Studio wrote:
Has anyone compiled a list of these sites, specifically the ones that are more model/photographer friendly than the others? I'd be curious to take a look at such a list if it existed.... I'll work on that tonight-be looking in your messages tomorrow!
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
There is already a few threads about it on MM
Use the thread search function.
Photographer
VividlyFierce
Posts: 39
Canton, Georgia, US
You know I know what you mean. I have been contacted bout two seperate shoots myself. And top it off one was in Texas. 2000 miles away.
Model
Mitsukai
Posts: 581
Walnut Creek, California, US
I joined suicidegirls in 2004 because a friend said they had a fun community. For the past year I've been trying to cancel my membership and they just keep charging me. I've changed my billing to non-recurring 3 times, and then the fourth time I closed my account, it said that my profile would expire the day before I was charged again. When I was charged that time I contacted their customer service who told me they would not refund my money, that all the times I tried to close my account before by choosing non-recurring were futile because you weren't allowed to switch from recurring to non-recurring, even though it gave the option, and that my account would be closed next pay period. I'm still waiting. My bank will not do a chargeback unless I provide the code they were supposed to give me when I tried to close my account before, but I never got one. I never use the site. They're scum. This link leads to a story and some links to anti-sg blogs lead by ex suicidegirls. http://djwudi.livejournal.com/19225.html
Photographer
Kinetic Photography
Posts: 517
Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
C'mon...don't tell me you couldn't figure this out. You're just playing Devil's Advocate, right? honestly. i just became familiar with them about 3 months ago and i have been shocked at how popular they seem to be. since i dont like them i was curious to ask people who do like them what the appeal is.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Kinetic Photography wrote:
honestly. i just became familiar with them about 3 months ago and i have been shocked at how popular they seem to be. since i dont like them i was curious to ask people who do like them what the appeal is. Are you shocked because you never heard of something so big or because you can't belive people like things you don't?
Photographer
Southern Image Photo
Posts: 10021
Garner, North Carolina, US
Mitsukai wrote:
I joined suicidegirls in 2004 because a friend said they had a fun community. For the past year I've been trying to cancel my membership and they just keep charging me. I've changed my billing to non-recurring 3 times, and then the fourth time I closed my account, it said that my profile would expire the day before I was charged again.
When I was charged that time I contacted their customer service who told me they would not refund my money, that all the times I tried to close my account before by choosing non-recurring were futile because you weren't allowed to switch from recurring to non-recurring, even though it gave the option, and that my account would be closed next pay period. I'm still waiting. My bank will not do a chargeback unless I provide the code they were supposed to give me when I tried to close my account before, but I never got one. I never use the site. They're scum.
This link leads to a story and some links to anti-sg blogs lead by ex suicidegirls.
http://djwudi.livejournal.com/19225.html Fortunately, your problems with SG hasn't prompted you to...uh...commit suicide in frustration!
The more I hear, the worst these guys/gals sound!
Model
Ava Cavalli
Posts: 84
Pensacola, Florida, US
"How much do you pay for photosets? We pay $500 (as of June 28th 2006) per picture set that gets published on the site. If we shoot you, we will pay you $500 for each set we shoot of you. There are also some rewards outside of money for our models: free lifetime membership to the site, free t-shirts, clothing, and stickers, free tickets to SG sponsored and member events in their area, and a forum to reach over 200,000 people a week. We also promote the girls events and projects on the homepage. The girls are free to use their journals to sell their art, promote their bands, as well just getting a place to keep a journal that has a large built in audience." They also go about saying "Just from being featured on SuicideGirls, girls have been hired to appear in music videos, tv shows, radio shows, film and music festivals, fashion shows, countless magazines and advertising campaigns." I was a SG hopeful (meaning I made it past the first hurdle of the application process) but I soon found out that it was totally not worth it, and it wasn't really what I thought it would be. I'm more interested in the alt/glam pinup girl type photos, as opposed to just getting naked. The original concept of what a SuicideGirl is, actually is really intriguing and inspiring to a lot women who aren't exactly "mainstream" modeling material (for whatever reason) "With a vibrant, sex positive community of women (and men), SuicideGirls was founded on the belief that creativity, personality and intelligence are not incompatible with sexy, compelling entertainment, and millions of people agree. The site mixes the smarts, enthusiasm and DIY attitude of the best music and alternative culture sites with an unapologetic, grassroots approach to sexuality." Although they do pay the $500, the girls who apply (and are published) aren't getting the pay check of like $1000 a month they are expecting. You aren't accepted all the time, and it seems like they feature the same women over and over... Nixon Suicide, Quinne Suicide, Cherry Suicide, Al Suicide, and the other girls who were either on the CSI episode last week, or the ones who are very close to the founders of the site.... So unless you live in Portland, OR, or LA... then why bother?? They've been known to screw over their favorites too... Glad I found out before it was too late! **All quotes can be found on the SuicideGirls website www.suicidegirls.com**
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Mitsukai wrote:
I joined suicidegirls in 2004 because a friend said they had a fun community. For the past year I've been trying to cancel my membership and they just keep charging me. I've changed my billing to non-recurring 3 times, and then the fourth time I closed my account, it said that my profile would expire the day before I was charged again.
When I was charged that time I contacted their customer service who told me they would not refund my money, that all the times I tried to close my account before by choosing non-recurring were futile because you weren't allowed to switch from recurring to non-recurring, even though it gave the option, and that my account would be closed next pay period. I'm still waiting. My bank will not do a chargeback unless I provide the code they were supposed to give me when I tried to close my account before, but I never got one. I never use the site. They're scum.
This link leads to a story and some links to anti-sg blogs lead by ex suicidegirls.
http://djwudi.livejournal.com/19225.html Change your CC# before they charge you again.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Jessica Laux wrote:
The original concept of what a SuicideGirl is, actually is really intriguing and inspiring to a lot women who aren't exactly "mainstream" modeling material (for whatever reason)
"With a vibrant, sex positive community of women (and men), SuicideGirls was founded on the belief that creativity, personality and intelligence are not incompatible with sexy, compelling entertainment, and millions of people agree. The site mixes the smarts, enthusiasm and DIY attitude of the best music and alternative culture sites with an unapologetic, grassroots approach to sexuality." Yes, it sounds nice, but it was just a load of bollocks to dupe dumb wanabes into thinking they were "empowered" when they were really just getting used. Don't people know what propaganda looks like anymore?
The ironic fact is that girls who'd take their clothes off for SG in a hot second would never "lower" themselves to work with a fetish photographer like myself, although my peers and I as a group tend to treat our subjects with a thousand times more respect than some money-grubbing paysite ever will. Food for thought.
Model
Ava Cavalli
Posts: 84
Pensacola, Florida, US
Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
The ironic fact is that girls who'd take their clothes off for SG in a hot second would never "lower" themselves to work with a fetish photographer like myself, although my peers and I as a group tend to treat our subjects with a thousand times more respect than some money-grubbing paysite ever will. Food for thought. Agreed!
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Southern Image Photo wrote:
Woo hoo! Define "prolific" and whadya have to do to get in contact with these sites?
:^) Think in terms of shooting 10,000 usable frames a year with 50 - 60 different models... AND UP... and you begin to verge on prolific = roughly a 200+ frame sessions with a different model every week x 52 weeks. Really prolific is 2 or 3 or 4 times this output.
It's turning a profit that is the real trick.
Studio36
Photographer
StephanieLM
Posts: 930
San Francisco, California, US
Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
As I stated above, that's what SG tells all models to do. All things being equal, anyone who'd screw you like that just to get their picture on the internet isn't really your friend anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much. The money issue was just one of many things that drove us apart. (I'm not mourning the loss, believe me. Good riddance drama.)
The main issue is one that drives me absolutely nuts about this whole absurd SG phenomenon. The chick flipped out and refused to speak to me because my refusal to do the set meant I "thought she was a slut" and she "couldn't associate with people who thought such negative things of her."
This was based on a statement I made about not wanting to associate my professional name with pornography. (For the record, I don't condemn porn, I just believe in calling a spade a spade.) She insisted it wasn't porn. I've heard this batty sentiment from a bunch of the SG crowd. How the hell is it not porn?!?! And why/how do these girls get all high and mighty when you call it what it is?
"I'm not doing porn. I'm just stripping naked and touching myself in unartistic photos for cash so that people can subscribe to a paysite and get off on it."
I don't think even the Nazis had such successful propaganda.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
SickShooter wrote:
As I've said before...yuck.
One of my good friends has been with SG for almost 4 years..but I still don't see the appeal.
With the exception of Lithium Picnic and a few others, the photography is awful.
There are better alternative modeling sites out there! TONS of them. Anyone into the lifestyle sees people just like themselves - and that gives them an ego boost.
Anyone not into the lifestyle sees a freak show with tits.
Basically it seems to sell either way.
Studio36
Photographer
Southern Image Photo
Posts: 10021
Garner, North Carolina, US
studio36uk wrote:
Think in terms of shooting 10,000 usable frames a year with 50 - 60 different models... AND UP... and you begin to verge on prolific = roughly a 200+ frame sessions with a different model every week x 52 weeks. Really prolific is 2 or 3 or 4 times this output.
It's turning a profit that is the real trick.
Studio36 OK. Hold it right there (click), now move your elbow up 2 inches (click), another 2 inches (click), tilt your head a little more to the right (click)...
Heck, I could turn out 300 frames per session like that!
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
StarlaMeris wrote:
The money issue was just one of many things that drove us apart. (I'm not mourning the loss, believe me. Good riddance drama.)
The main issue is one that drives me absolutely nuts about this whole absurd SG phenomenon. The chick flipped out and refused to speak to me because my refusal to do the set meant I "thought she was a slut" and she "couldn't associate with people who thought such negative things of her."
This was based on a statement I made about not wanting to associate my professional name with pornography. (For the record, I don't condemn porn, I just believe in calling a spade a spade.) She insisted it wasn't porn. I've heard this batty sentiment from a bunch of the SG crowd. How the hell is it not porn?!?! And why/how do these girls get all high and mighty when you call it what it is?
"I'm not doing porn. I'm just stripping naked and touching myself in unartistic photos for cash so that people can subscribe to a paysite and get off on it."
I don't think even the Nazis had such successful propaganda. Well, speaking as someone who does associate their professional name with pornography, I can assure you that SG is indeed porn...It's just second rate porn. My porn is much better, thank you.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Southern Image Photo wrote:
OK. Hold it right there (click), now move your elbow up 2 inches (click), another 2 inches (click), tilt your head a little more to the right (click)...
Heck, I could turn out 300 frames per session like that! No you don't...it's brutal. I'd rather shoot hardcore than the silly "inch by inch" striptease that SG deals in. Completely artless.
Photographer
Southern Image Photo
Posts: 10021
Garner, North Carolina, US
Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
No you don't...it's brutal. I'd rather shoot hardcore than the silly "inch by inch" striptease that SG deals in. Completely artless. Roflmfao...
Define "brutal".
I had to work a shovel digging drainage ditches in a tobacco field as a kid!
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Southern Image Photo wrote:
Roflmfao...
Define "brutal".
I had to work a shovel digging drainage ditches in a tobacco field as a kid! Done both... rather do the shoveling...
Photographer
Darker-Side of-Midnight
Posts: 1822
Southfield, Michigan, US
Rossi Photography wrote:
I think they may be running short of models/new sets. I've noticed the last two/three months, in their Myspace blog where they are 'supposed' to post a new set every day.. they are posting older sets. Which leads me to believe they are in need of new ones. So, I don't know... maybe they are pushing it somewhere. Jodi I can shoot your SG set and well you know the rest of the story.....
Photographer
aesthetix photo
Posts: 10558
Macon, Georgia, US
SickShooter wrote:
I'll work on that tonight-be looking in your messages tomorrow! Thanks, luv. You rock
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Southern Image Photo wrote:
OK. Hold it right there (click), now move your elbow up 2 inches (click), another 2 inches (click), tilt your head a little more to the right (click)...
Heck, I could turn out 300 frames per session like that! Not meant to set a limit - upper or lower - merely setting out an exemplar volume where one might be considered "prolific" in that kind of single genre production.
I know how it looks business wise from the codb point of view as well as what the income would look like after brokerage fees. If you don't have someone buying most or all of what you are producing then brokering it semi-exclusive takes a healthy chunk of the gross to the point that you aren't turning a profit until the same content sells x5 - x7 times.
The smart guys today will shoot [high quality] video alongside stills to maximise their returns on model costs. The production costs go up but so do the sales prospects.
Studio36
Model
Mitsukai
Posts: 581
Walnut Creek, California, US
James Jackson wrote:
Change your CC# before they charge you again. Tried that. They just charged the old one when the new one didn't work.
|
