RBDesign wrote:

The couple of models that I talked to are looking to find/hire their own photographers because SG does not have any under contract in the area. The models may be confused but they believe that they will be paid $500/set. That sounds a bit different from what I understood SG contracts looked like a year or so ago.
Some of the friends that I shot some sets for really liked doing SG and others hated them but were filling some money gaps.

As someone else mentioned consistent 10-15 sets a day at $200/set is not bad money but you can do much better shooting almost any other exclusive content. Any way trying to do more than 6-7 sets a day is a real grind and usually a big sacrifice in quality.

RB

I'm looking at my contract here (haven't signed yet) and they do pay the model $500 per set IF they accept it but if you sign the contract they have irrevocable and unexpiring rights to unlimited use of the "model's likeness" which is defined as image, name, nickname, persona, character, slogan, logo, autograph, voice, and any media actual or simulated(!?!?) without model's approval... Huh. Think I may be worth more than $500 unconfirmed and go see what the Devil's offering these days... Didn't really want to have read messages from some weirdo about his fantasies w/me anyway.

I met the girls on the Suicide Tour and they were all dancers or actors with other agencies in LA hired for the tour. None of them were SG and were pretty adamant about letting people know that outside of the venue.

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.

Sure, Melvin, you [and I] also know how the webmasters also like to buy in that stuff in smaller sets. Take a 300 fr shoot: the progressive fully dressed > slow strip > full nude shoot gives 1/3 of each set dressed; the half stripped tease stuff the middle 1/3; and the full nudes [with or without fingers, toys and spreads,] the last 1/3. So you mix and match 300 frames into 4x80 frames; or 5x60 frames; or 6x50 frames as "sets." And sell them as "sets" like that rather than the "run of the shoot" 300 fr as a single package.

To get the 300 usable frames you are going to shoot 10 - 20% overage; and if you are paying attention, with a view to quality output; to the model not flagging; to the lighting and to the shooting set then that would represent maybe 6 hours of work shooting and probably a couple of additional hours editing. That's a long day.

Studio36

Mitsukai wrote:

Tried that. They just charged the old one when the new one didn't work.

No I mean on your end.  Cut up your CC, take it to your bank or wherever you have it from, and have them issue a new copy with a new number.

James Jackson wrote:

No I mean on your end.  Cut up your CC, take it to your bank or wherever you have it from, and have them issue a new copy with a new number.

That's actually a very good idea. I might do that.

studio36uk wrote:

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

Are my photos really that misleading?
I generally take out my piercings...but...seriously??  Do I look that "mainstream"?
Wow...wonder when that happened?

Either way...I see girls like me...getting paid crap to shoot with shit photographers.  THAT is why I don't like it.

LightLab Studios wrote:
doesn't surprise me if they are running into shortages on photosets. they made asses of themselves treating models and photogs like crap. like wynd says, most of their content is piss poor. i shot a set as a favor for a model. they told me to photoshop over 60 images (the model had some "issues"), so i told them it was $75/hour. and i never signed their stupid work-for-hire contract. uggh.

what's the deal with lithium picnic? he must keep the rights to his images; have a special arrangement with them.

if you notice, he only has the contractual 4 photos on his site.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
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.

And you just have to respect the person who's willing to stand up and say "I shoot porn!  And I'm damn proud of it!" rather than trying to justify it or build some arbitrary moral distinction.  All that energy spent rationalizing (a la SG) could much better be spent just making the best damn porn you can (a la you).

Mitsukai wrote:

That's actually a very good idea. I might do that.

Or just hassle the crap out of them.  I had an account for a year when my friend (previously mentioned in this thread) was wanting me to do her set.  Checking out how the whole thing worked and whatnot.  When that year was up I had the same problem you're describing and I bullied them into submission.  They even refunded a month in the end.  Ruffling feathers is always better if you ask me.  It wastes a whole bunch of their time/money.    Or maybe I'm just vengeful and bitchy.

studio36uk wrote:

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

Sorry to get back to this party I started so late today but I actually had work to do ;-)

I agree with the definition of prolific offered but that is on the low end sort of semi-prolific. The only way to turn a good profit is to hire models by the day and get at least 9-10 different sets done of at least 300 useable images for each set. It is a real grind. Depending on what you are shooting you you can find buyers that want exclusive rights and sell it for 10-50x the price for non-exclusive more generic content. Really depends on what business you are in.

As I mentioned before if you are prolific you can make money but it is a grind or if you like to work slower and still have the same production budget do what many others do, spend 6 months out of the year in the Czech Republic. If you have a giant budget than fly 100 model over from eastern europe, and some good lawyers, accounts to deal with the foreign ID 2257 thing (is that ironed out yet) and the fact that you can't really pay models on a tourist visa. To complicated for me.

Now I remember why I don't do that anymore and stick to mainstream and fetish fashion :-)

RB

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...

Southern Image Photo wrote:
Define "brutal".

I had to work a shovel digging drainage ditches in a tobacco field as a kid!

Hey if you think it's a great deal, by all means go for it.  Come back after six or eight months of shooting the same old crap for peanuts and let us know how much fun it's been.

RBDesign wrote:
As I mentioned before if you are prolific you can make money but it is a grind or if you like to work slower and still have the same production budget do what many others do, spend 6 months out of the year in the Czech Republic. If you have a giant budget than fly 100 model over from eastern europe, and some good lawyers, accounts to deal with the foreign ID 2257 thing (is that ironed out yet) and the fact that you can't really pay models on a tourist visa. To complicated for me.

Now I remember why I don't do that anymore and stick to mainstream and fetish fashion :-)

RB

The deal with 2257 and soon to be 2257A is that: 1) If you shoot a foreign model INSIDE the US then they must have been legally admitted for work - and the ID recorded and of which you MUST keep a physical copy, MUST BE US issued by a state or the feds.; OTOH... 2) if you are a US citizen and undertake to work with a foreign model OUTSIDE the US then you can use whatever acceptable*** ID they can offer but you MUST be able to document the fact that the work was created outside the US.

*** Acceptable ID contains a photo of the model; their birth date; their legal name; and must be issued by a "state" [national or local official government documents or obtained from official records custodians such as certified birth certificates.]. More than one document, if necessary, can be used to obtain all the information but typically the best is a passport or national identity card which usually contain all the information on a single page in a single document.

A lot of producers are requiring two documents [two forms of ID] but that is strictly not required if all the information is available from one comprehensively.

Studio36

Neyrissa  wrote:
Yes, the contract is exclusive, but it's not excluding you from very much, as far as photography and modelling in the real world goes.

So get over it, boys and girls, and stop taking yourselves and the internet so seriously.

Now go look at some boobies...they're fun.

If you believe that, and the other comments you wrote, you haven't read their contracts in detail or understood them. You also fail to note that SG is now selling content to other sites... and maybe some not to the liking of the models or photographers.

Shooting to be an SG girl is one thing; shooting for the porn industry more generally, as SG sells that content on, is a completely different thing. Doing it with informed consent is one thing; doing it without is a completely other thing.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

If you believe that, and the other comments you wrote, you haven't read their contracts in detail or understood them. You also fail to note that SG is now selling content to other sites... and maybe some not to the liking of the models or photographers.

Shooting to be an SG girl is one thing; shooting for the porn industry more generally, as SG sells that content on, is a completely different thing. Doing it with informed consent is one thing; doing it without is a completely other thing.

Studio36

Yes, I am aware of it, but I'm not interesting enough in the slightest for my images to be sold on (no "pussy shots" or whatever you like to call them) so I'm not worried in the slightest.

studio36uk wrote:
If you believe that, and the other comments you wrote, you haven't read their contracts in detail or understood them. You also fail to note that SG is now selling content to other sites... and maybe some not to the liking of the models or photographers.

Shooting to be an SG girl is one thing; shooting for the porn industry more generally, as SG sells that content on, is a completely different thing. Doing it with informed consent is one thing; doing it without is a completely other thing.

Studio36

playboy.com?

Neyrissa  wrote:
Oh come on guys, y'all take the internet much too f*cking seriously.

Just look at it this way:

1. The models are paid $500 for a set which is really just one day's work. That's an average day rate for agencies here in the UK for a simple day shoot booking. So it's just like any other job. I don't see most models on MM or any site like this getting $500 bookings. So it's money in the bank that wasn't made by hanging around on the forums here.

2. Yes, the model has to sign an exclusive agreement (this counts for photographers too). But really, how many of these alt porn sites exist? Not *that* many, and certainly not that many (if any) with such a huge amount of subscribers. So yea, you only get to model for this site, or shoot for it, but what's the big loss? You can still accept bookings to shoot for photographers, companies, agencies, etc. They don't ask you not to do that. All they want is that you don't model for their competition. Hey, sounds like an exclusive agency contract, doesn't it? And hey, many of the BIG agencies ask you to sign contracts JUST LIKE THAT. Well, gee, shucks...

As for the photographers, again, you can't shoot for any of the other alt porn sites, but they're not that well visited, now are they? Your name and link goes up on each set you shoot. Link to anywhere you like, whether it's your homepage or MM profile or a charity website.

3. Yes, they don't pay photographers much, I'll agree. $100 for shooting a set, $100 for full "photoshopping" to their standards. But hell, it's an extra $200 in your pocket. How can you complain about money? Yes, you sign the pictures over to them but they're happy for you to use examples of the set in your book, as long as you're not selling it. Girls and photographers have even had their set pics published in, amongst other things, magazines. Only restriction is that it has to have to logo. Ohhh, scary, isn't it?

Everyone needs to get off their bloody high horses and think of it this way- it's only the f*cking internet! And money's money! If a guy walked up to you on the street and said "Hey, here's five bucks, you wannem?", I doubt anyone here would say no.

Yes, the contract is exclusive, but it's not excluding you from very much, as far as photography and modelling in the real world goes.

So get over it, boys and girls, and stop taking yourselves and the internet so seriously.

Now go look at some boobies...they're fun.

This company is a muli-million dollar company taking advantage of people left and right, both models and photographers. I have worked with companies half this size who buyout an image for 1 year, exclusive use to do what they want, for $2500... and again that is one image. After that year is up they either pay an additional fee or they don't use it anymore. If the company wants to buy the image outright then the fee would be around $5k, yet here you receive a huge $200 pay check...maybe we should let the owner bitch slap us while we are submitting the sets to add to the humilation.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

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...

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.

Huh. So, what I'm understanding here is, SG suggests to the models to fuck over the photographer? I'm asking because a model, who I'm also friends with, come to me to do an SG set. We did the set, she was all excited about it. Then when it come time to take care of the contract and sending the photos in, she dropped it. She just stopped talking to me about it. And then just used the photos in her portfolio instead. I thought it was odd that she just suddenly lost interest in it. But just figured she changed her mind. I was surprised because it was something she really wanted to do. But now... after reading that SG tells the models to fuck over the photog, I'm wondering if SG suggested that to this model and that's why she suddenly dropped it. Because she didn't want to screw me over because we're friends. Hmmm... I'm gonna' give her a call and talk to her. Ask her what happened.

Interesting.

Darker-Side of-Midnight wrote:

Jodi I can shoot your SG set and well you know the rest of the story.....

HA! Yeah, right. I told you I'm not a model. Lol...

But, that doesn't mean I won't do the "Depants'd GWC" shoot with you next month. That's going to be fun!

nikki fiction wrote:

playboy.com?

punkrockgirlfriend.com - same girls, different names.

nikki fiction wrote:
playboy.com?

If you are asking if that is where SG is selling to... then the answer is no. Think in terms more like "freaky_pussy.com" or maybe "tattooed_sluts.net"

They have apparently turned out a content CD for all comers to buy selected SG images under license via a broker. Thousands of images are on offer. The actual broker's advertisement for that offer was documented in another thread.

Wynd Mulysa wrote:
punkrockgirlfriend.com - same girls, different names.

It seems, from adult [web] industry information I have read, that SG is also restricting use of both the SG name and the model's SG identity in that deal... the buyer is expected to create a new identity, name and profile out of thin air. So for the model, the SG identity is lost and the pictures become straight-on "stroke shots" for the porn surfers. SG models have absolutely no way to prevent it. The model's  agreement with SG allows them to do any damn thing the please with your photos.

The photographers, OTOH, also have no say in this either because they will have signed over the rights to the images to SG in the first place.

Studio36

Rossi Photography wrote:
Hmmm... I'm gonna' give her a call and talk to her. Ask her what happened.

Interesting.

More likely she read AND UNDERSTOOD what she was being asked to sign in the way of a model release and model agreement with SG and decided to pass. You should also have seen a photographer's assignment of rights as well. Didn't you?

Studio36

Wynd Mulysa wrote:

punkrockgirlfriend.com - same girls, different names.

I'm new here so help me out.  You just linked to an adult paysite,
I thought that was a big no no.  I'd love to post a link link to my OWN 'alt' model naked
punk girl site if it won't get me kicked off MM....so any clarification
is appreciated.

nikki fiction wrote:
after you have been accepted as an sg, they encourage you to have a friend take your pics w/ a regular camera (maybe even disposabe in a well lit room....they say it isnt necessary to have them done professionally.

ROTFLMAO..... because they know no professional photographer wants to do them and then sign away the rights for absolutely shit money. Hell, it must be getting hard to even find GWCs to shoot on their terms.

Studio36

Studio Spike wrote:
I'm new here so help me out.  You just linked to an adult paysite,
I thought that was a big no no.  I'd love to post a link link to my OWN 'alt' model naked
punk girl site if it won't get me kicked off MM....so any clarification
is appreciated.

I was replying to the girl who asked about what site SG is selling their content to.  It is definitely not my site and I am absolutely not promoting it.

studio36uk wrote:

More likely she read AND UNDERSTOOD what she was being asked to sign in the way of a model release and model agreement with SG and decided to pass. You should also have seen a photographer's assignment of rights as well. Didn't you?

Studio36

Yeah, I read it. Didn't really care for it much, but was going to agree to it because she's a friend.

Rossi Photography wrote:
Yeah, I read it. Didn't really care for it much, but was going to agree to it because she's a friend.

MUCH??? I don't care for it AT ALL! LOL

Studio36

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...

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.

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.

Rossi Photography wrote:
Huh. So, what I'm understanding here is, SG suggests to the models to fuck over the photographer? I'm asking because a model, who I'm also friends with, come to me to do an SG set. We did the set, she was all excited about it. Then when it come time to take care of the contract and sending the photos in, she dropped it. She just stopped talking to me about it. And then just used the photos in her portfolio instead. I thought it was odd that she just suddenly lost interest in it. But just figured she changed her mind. I was surprised because it was something she really wanted to do. But now... after reading that SG tells the models to fuck over the photog, I'm wondering if SG suggested that to this model and that's why she suddenly dropped it. Because she didn't want to screw me over because we're friends. Hmmm... I'm gonna' give her a call and talk to her. Ask her what happened.

Interesting.

I wouldn't even say this out loud if I hadn't heard it from an actual current SG model/photographer...who shall go nameless, of course.

Neyrissa  wrote:
Everyone needs to get off their bloody high horses and think of it this way- it's only the f*cking internet! And money's money! If a guy walked up to you on the street and said "Hey, here's five bucks, you wannem?", I doubt anyone here would say no.

You know what?  Just bite me.  I'm so tired of this idiotic "it's only the internet" nonsense.  You're talking about something that can literally bring the world to your fingertips and vice versa.  Because of "only the internet" I've sold my work to people as far as South America, all over Europe, Canada, Asia...the works.  Unless you want to become my rep and start flying my portfolio to all those places [at your own expense] you should really zip it and get some perspective.

Just because you don't care about being taken seriously dosen't mean the rest of us feel the same.  Maybe you should take your attitude back to the MySpace chatroom where it belongs.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

You know what?  Just bite me.  I'm so tired of this idiotic "it's only the internet" nonsense.  You're talking about something that can literally bring the world to your fingertips and vice versa.  Because of "only the internet" I've sold my work to people as far as South America, all over Europe, Canada, Asia...the works.  Unless you want to become my rep and start flying my portfolio to all those places [at your own expense] you should really zip it and get some perspective.

Just because you don't care about being taken seriously dosen't mean the rest of us feel the same.  Maybe you should take your attitude back to the MySpace chatroom where it belongs.

Holy crap, I hope you are ok now. Just take a deep breath, in through the nose out through the mouth. I just wish I didn't agree with you.

RB

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.

Why would you consider shooting under such terms?

It's photographers that are willing to do this work under those circumstances (meaning the terms of thier contract) that perpetuate these types of problems.

I have rates and 200 lousy bucks is nowhere to be found in them. Not even in agency tests... and I'm certainly not going to shoot 10 - 15 different setups A DAY at such rates. Pffft, hell, if I had to shoot like that my dayrate will take a sharp turn upwards. I've seen the website and it's pics. Why not just have some in-house person snap off pics with a cheapy digital as that's pretty much all it is anyway? It's T&A not a friggin Gucci campaign.

If you want to be considered a "professional" then have a backbone and be willing to let the trash go. It's okay...even recommended to say NO sometimes.