|
From time to time, someone will post on these forums something along the lines of 'How does a photographer make money from nudes?'
And the answer is usually "You don't", or a very rare few might say 'Gallery shows and prints'. Some models use Patreon. I'm curious, though, what professional nude models on here think of Bentbox. My reasons for liking it would be that it offers a way to monetize a specific set of photos, without any kind of expectations that I'll be delivering daily or weekly updates for Patreon users who would expect regular updates. For someone who does this as a hobby and part-time, being able to edit a set of photos, then put it up and be done with it, is more desirable than Patreon, particularly if it might be a month or two between updates. However, Bentbox feels seedy to me -- much like the back alleys of the Vegas strip. I believe it allows users to sell porn, not merely artistic content. So even if I myself were only selling artistic or glamour nude photos, the mere fact that I'm on a platform that also has porn seems like it would taint what I'm doing. Additionally, I've used releases with some models that has a 'no pornography' clause. While I don't *think* that would apply to my selling artistic or glamour 'boxes' on bentbox, the mere fact that other users use it to sell porn makes me leery of using it. As such, I've in the past ruled it out as even being an option to try to recouperate some of the modeling and studio fees I've spent on a session. That's really the only goal here: to be able to continue an enjoyable but very expensive hobby and make it self-funding. But the last model I shot with surprised me. When I was explaining to her that for photographers, there is no money in nude photography, she actually *suggested* bentbox. So now I'm curious: do other models here feel the same way? You view it as being just as valid as Patreon? Or, would you rather not have a set of photos up for sale on bentbox? Aug 13 18 11:05 pm Link Good Question. Here is another possible avenue.
http://www.diverxity.com/users/35659/about Aug 14 18 08:15 am Link I would try it. From what I've heard there's a lot of "adult" type content on BentBox, but you can post the kind of art nudes that I shoot there as well. Like most of these sites, I think marketing and SEO are absolutely crucial to making any money. In general I'm more excited about the monthly subscription model of Patreon, but lately they've been kind of lame to their nude art creators which I don't really appreciate.
I considered joining Diverxity back in the day when I was also doing Zivity, but by then Zivity was becoming a lot of work for very little money back, and from what I heard from other models, Diverxity was even worse, so in the end I never actually did sign up. Aug 14 18 11:03 am Link Mike - Beatnik 13 Photography wrote: What has been your experience there?
Aug 14 18 11:24 am Link L_O_N_D_O_N wrote: I have made a bit of money from the site. I certainly enjoy shooting for the site. It gives me a bigger boost than just putting images up on something like Fine Art America or View Bug.
Aug 15 18 10:01 am Link Mike - Beatnik 13 Photography wrote: What is Dx? Aug 16 18 01:33 am Link LONDON Fashion wrote: DX = Diverxity Aug 16 18 08:40 am Link Mina Salome wrote: If you're interested in a Patreon alternative that is more nude-friendly, a new site just soft launched that I'm helping to shoot for called https://Mega.Fans. Here's the press release on it: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release … 98372.html Aug 29 18 04:06 am Link My experience with the "no porn" clauses in contracts is more along the lines of you're not going to shoot secret genital photos or you're not going to photoshop the models head onto the body of someone engaged in porn, you're not gonna photoshop a dildo into her hand and sell the image to a toy company to use on their packaging, etc. I dont know that I'd consider it to cover "your work wont be showcased near images of other people that might be considered pornographic" especially if the porn thats being shown near the work isnt your own work but someone elses and they just happen to be in proximity to one another.
Tumblr is a good example of this. I get my art nudes reblogged by users right next to hardcore anal gifs and god knows what else all the time. If Im putting my work on tumblr then I'm opening myself up to my face getting sandwiched between two massive galleries of all sorts of things. And nobody is even getting paid for that, at least on bentbox someone makes money. That bentbox hosts porn isnt what worries me necessarily. I'd just suggest that you be extremely upfront with the models you're intending to book BEFORE booking so they can decide if that's something they're cool with before doing the shoot. Honest upfront communication stops most headaches before they start Aug 29 18 01:01 pm Link Laura UnBound wrote: That is great in theory, but given how rapidly the Internet changes, with new sites and formats coming out all the time (who knew about Patreon a few years ago) it would be very hard to predict what other kind of content might be displayed on any particular site you want to use. Not to mention the problem of finding and contacting models some years down the road to discuss the latest, greatest site. Aug 29 18 10:07 pm Link I'd rather someone make $$$ selling photos on an adult site rather then whine about not knowing how to make a dollar.
I have seen my "art nude" photos that are tame enough to be published in newspapers and mainstream media, posted to tumblr blogs titled "A fuck a day". There is no way to control where the images wind up once they are on the internet. When I shoot & have models sign model releases, I make sure to tell them, "This image can wind up ANYWHERE, your grandmother might see it on a Time Square Billboard." That gets the point across. Aug 30 18 06:22 am Link Eye of the World wrote: Which is why I'm suggesting you be honest at the time of inquiry - you intend to find a way to sell the images, those images may be showcased on the internet in a place that also showcases adult content. They can accept your offer or not. Aug 30 18 06:31 am Link Eye of the World wrote: Laura UnBound wrote: Laura Unbound is right, just be upfront about how you intend to use the images, once the model release is signed, there is no need to go back & track down models years later. Aug 30 18 06:41 am Link Ionalynn wrote: My release, which limits my use of the photos to narrowly defined venues, contains a "hold harmless" clause that says given both model and photographer will be posting images to their online portfolios, the image can appear through the actions of others anywhere, and neither party is to be held responsible for such nor sell rights or give permission for such.
Aug 30 18 07:44 am Link My model release form says we won't be taking adult pictures but the pictures could be given to 3rd parties who might publish adult pictures. I put that in because even if you try there's no way to avoid pictures ending up on adult sites. I've seen glamour sites get sold to porn companies who keep their old content and introduce hard porn to them. I've seen tame artistic photography blogs with ads for webcam sites. As a photographer you decide who can share your pictures but you can't control the other type of pictures that they get to share. I rather not see pictures I take sharing this same online space but the paying market is found on these same online spaces. Aug 30 18 02:40 pm Link How would one differentiate "art" from "porn".
If that line is clear, one could make some sort of further downstream judgments on websites that peddle in "art" or "porn". Since that line is fuzzy or maybe even non-existent you should decide or yourself if you want your images used a certain way or not. Aligning yourself with an imaginary category of "art" only, no "porn" is entirely up to you but can't have any objective external validity that other people can relate to. Just my little useless opinion. Jun 16 19 09:12 am Link |
