DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Not sure what to do....
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 27, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/29/2005 12:37:34 PM · #1
I shot some pictures for a girlfriend and she used them to apply to be a Suicide Girl. (For those who don't know, it's a website that features modified girls in pin-up style, nude and clothed.) They've accepted her application and want a photoset of 60-70 shots right away. My only problem is this;
If I do this again for her, they take all rights to the photographs and will not allow me to add them to my personal portfolio, but they pay $200 a set and give me credit on the site. I'm torn.
Is the recognition and $200 enough to sign over all rights to my work?
Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks,

~Nicole
//www.liveloveshoot.com
 11/29/2005 01:07:31 PM · #2
I think this is all a matter of opinion. I would ask myself "how much money would I make off these pictures if they didn't have them" and know there's really nothing they can do to you if you have a few on hand by accident. I'm no legal beagle... but I'd probably print a few for myself "to use for personal reference" (not professional ref.) or keep them on a disc or something and go ahead and sell.
 11/29/2005 01:16:36 PM · #3
This may seem silly, but why not shoot 80 and keep the 10 best for yourself?
 11/29/2005 01:19:31 PM · #4
*NEVER* give away your copyrights.
 11/29/2005 01:22:47 PM · #5
I guess I should explain a bit more.

Make sure you read the contract and see if you are giving away your copyright. If you are, just walk away from it without signing anything.

If give them rights but maintain the copyright. Then it your choice if the rights being given away are worth what you are being payed.

In general though (atleast with everything I have done so far), they really can't stop you from using the images in your portfolio.
 11/29/2005 01:25:16 PM · #6
Originally posted by coley3:
...it's a website that features modified girls in pin-up style, nude and clothed


Do you mean girls with those sweet LED exhaust fans and transparent towers? Or have they been upgraded in other ways?

(I just chorkled at the term...I assume it means pierced or inked.)
 11/29/2005 01:29:41 PM · #7
Thanks for the replies!
I had thought about keeping the best ones for myself and that probably what I'll do. $200 isn't bad, I guess, considering I photograph her for free all the time.
But Jason's right...I hate the thought of giving away the copyrights to my photos. Can someone explain to me what it would mean when she says that they take ALL RIGHTS to the photos (she wrote it in all capitals too.)
The contract will state that the shots cannot be shown on any other website, even as a preview, but won't say anything about physical photos I suppose.
 11/29/2005 01:31:50 PM · #8
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you mean girls with those sweet LED exhaust fans and transparent towers? Or have they been upgraded in other ways?

(I just chorkled at the term...I assume it means pierced or inked.)


HAHA...yeah, that's what it means. Although, I'm sure some of them have other "upgrades" in addition to their tattoos and piercings.
 11/29/2005 01:39:59 PM · #9
dont do it

i've had dealing with SG it isnt worth it. I've also shot sets for other nicer alt-porn sites, and it still isnt worth it.
 11/29/2005 01:41:55 PM · #10
oh there is also a clause in the contract which states that you cannot "keep the best" and use them yourself. The whole set, whether published or not on the website is included in the contract, and thus you cannot use them on your own personal site etc.
 11/29/2005 01:48:26 PM · #11
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
oh there is also a clause in the contract which states that you cannot "keep the best" and use them yourself. The whole set, whether published or not on the website is included in the contract, and thus you cannot use them on your own personal site etc.


Really? well I guess they've thought of everything. I'll look over the contract when I get it.
 11/29/2005 01:52:52 PM · #12
it was certainly in the contact i signed. But then i got paid for my work, and did not relese copyright.

Phillip Warner is the only photog on SG that does get paid. Which frankly i think is rediculously unfair. But, on things SG has done that are unfair, that is only the tip of the iceberg.
 11/29/2005 01:53:51 PM · #13
I've done (EDIT: did a shoot) a girl on SG... think of it this way. Think of it as doing a portrait session or a weddding. You get paid for the work, you walk away from it with cash. Nothing stops you from using the shots in your portfolio.

Although SG's contract says they can't be used on other web sites. As long as you go in with the mind set that this is a paying gig, you won't feel bad about it. And, you may shoot another entire set while your at it for your own use.

Message edited by author 2005-11-29 13:54:35.
 11/29/2005 02:08:39 PM · #14
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I've done (EDIT: did a shoot) a girl on SG... think of it this way. Think of it as doing a portrait session or a weddding. You get paid for the work, you walk away from it with cash. Nothing stops you from using the shots in your portfolio.

Although SG's contract says they can't be used on other web sites. As long as you go in with the mind set that this is a paying gig, you won't feel bad about it. And, you may shoot another entire set while your at it for your own use.


I was thinking that too. If I walk into it thinking that these shots are only for that site, then I can recreate some of the better ones for myself later. It just sounds so serious, giving up copyrights.
 11/29/2005 02:10:58 PM · #15
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
it was certainly in the contact i signed. But then i got paid for my work, and did not relese copyright.

Phillip Warner is the only photog on SG that does get paid. Which frankly i think is rediculously unfair. But, on things SG has done that are unfair, that is only the tip of the iceberg.


I was told by one of the girls in the SG office that there was payment of $200 per-shoot. I've heard some shady things about them as well... I'm definitely not sure if that's a company that I want to be affiliated with.
 11/29/2005 02:13:39 PM · #16
it really depends on whether or not you want the money, and whether or not the money is enough.

there are basically two types of contracts: "publishing agreements" and "works for hire". most of my freelance contracts are publishing agreements that give whoever hired me a license to publish my images one time; not only do they have to pay again for any subsequent use of the images, all reprint requests have to be forwarded to me.

a "works for hire" contract basically gives whoever hires you all the rights to the images you produce. the basic Associate Press contract spells out that you are to turn in all images shot on assignment to them at the end of the assignment--end of story. you may negotiate addendums, fees, etc., but you are not being paid to pad your portfolio--you are being paid to produce images.

you may be able to 'get away' with holding back some images, or posting them on your own website/portfolio, but, if you have a written, signed contract that does not allow you to do that, you are playing with fire. if you cannot get the contract you want, or come to terms that are acceptable to you, then DON'T SIGN THE CONTRACT and DON'T DO THE WORK. simple as that.

sometimes, it is worth it to pick up a few bucks that you otherwise wouldn't have had; nothing wrong with that. just make sure you know what you're doing and why you're doing it ahead of time. good luck!
 11/29/2005 02:22:37 PM · #17
Originally posted by coley3:
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
it was certainly in the contact i signed. But then i got paid for my work, and did not relese copyright.

Phillip Warner is the only photog on SG that does get paid. Which frankly i think is rediculously unfair. But, on things SG has done that are unfair, that is only the tip of the iceberg.


I was told by one of the girls in the SG office that there was payment of $200 per-shoot. I've heard some shady things about them as well... I'm definitely not sure if that's a company that I want to be affiliated with.


The girls get paid 200 per shoot, to do with as they please. If they wnt to split it with the photog it is up to them. Phil (lithium picnic) gets paid in addition to (and more than) the models for the shoots he does.
 11/29/2005 02:24:07 PM · #18
Let me ask you another question that has been ignored here. How important is this to your friend? And how important is it to you to do it for her?
11/29/2005 02:33:49 PM · #19
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Let me ask you another question that has been ignored here. How important is this to your friend? And how important is it to you to do it for her?


She says that she doesn't want to work with any other photographer. I have NO problem with her doing this with another photographer but she's so comfortable with me taking pics of her that she feels its the only way that she'll be able to get them the way that she wants. It's not important to me at all, and it's only relitivly important to her. She says that it's totally ok if I say no. I just don't want to say no to her if I don't need to.
 11/29/2005 02:36:10 PM · #20
Originally posted by mesmeraj:

The girls get paid 200 per shoot, to do with as they please. If they wnt to split it with the photog it is up to them. Phil (lithium picnic) gets paid in addition to (and more than) the models for the shoots he does.


This is what I was told from the person that I've been corresponding with; "Photographers are paid $200 (100 for photography and 100 for photoshopping/prepping)."

By the way, I appriecate all your help (and everyone's help) with helping me make this decision an educated one!

~Nicole

Message edited by author 2005-11-29 14:36:43.
 11/29/2005 02:41:39 PM · #21
Oh - they might have changed it since i last dealt with them. 'Bout time ;)
 11/29/2005 02:44:23 PM · #22
Originally posted by coley3:
She says that she doesn't want to work with any other photographer. I have NO problem with her doing this with another photographer but she's so comfortable with me taking pics of her that she feels its the only way that she'll be able to get them the way that she wants. It's not important to me at all, and it's only relitivly important to her. She says that it's totally ok if I say no. I just don't want to say no to her if I don't need to.


That was my situation when I shot for SG. Yup, I've dated an SG (wooo hoo, lol) I have copies, but they are archived on CD and I've never attempted to use them. I have shot her several times since then and still use her occasionally.

I'll also be shooting another girl for SG very soon (probably after Christmas), who has modeled for me before. I don't generally pay my models, so if I can give them something back in time/talent, it's worth it to have their trust and referrals to thier friends.
 11/29/2005 02:59:23 PM · #23
Couple of interesting articles;

Wired News: Suicide Girls Gone AWOL

Snippet: "She and other models say that contrary to its image as a women-run operation, SuicideGirls is actually controlled by a man -- co-founder Sean Suhl. They accuse him of treating women poorly and failing to pay them enough. (According to the site's FAQ, SuicideGirls models get paid $300 per photo set.)"

City Pages: Cynical, Bitter, Jaded As Hell. Also Naked. (Not Work Safe!)

Snippet: "(The models are paid the industry standard--around $200 an hour.)"
 01/30/2006 04:07:49 PM · #24
not true at all.

all 10 of the staff photographers on this page get paid:

//suicidegirls.com/help/

and over a dozen "official" but not yet staff photographers...

LP

Originally posted by mesmeraj:
it was certainly in the contact i signed. But then i got paid for my work, and did not relese copyright.

Phillip Warner is the only photog on SG that does get paid. Which frankly i think is rediculously unfair. But, on things SG has done that are unfair, that is only the tip of the iceberg.


Message edited by author 2006-01-30 16:09:54.
 01/30/2006 04:12:38 PM · #25
??? girls have been paid $300 a shoot for over a year now and i don't get paid more than the girls.

in addition to planning and styling my shoots i spend about 3 hours editing in post and making the logod web ready files.

$ is only a subset of the value i get from working with SG. at face value it isn't a strong value proposition for a professional photographer. it might not make sense for most people, it's been good for business (for me).

LP

Originally posted by mesmeraj:
Originally posted by coley3:
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
it was certainly in the contact i signed. But then i got paid for my work, and did not relese copyright.

Phillip Warner is the only photog on SG that does get paid. Which frankly i think is rediculously unfair. But, on things SG has done that are unfair, that is only the tip of the iceberg.


I was told by one of the girls in the SG office that there was payment of $200 per-shoot. I've heard some shady things about them as well... I'm definitely not sure if that's a company that I want to be affiliated with.


The girls get paid 200 per shoot, to do with as they please. If they wnt to split it with the photog it is up to them. Phil (lithium picnic) gets paid in addition to (and more than) the models for the shoots he does.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/17/2025 08:00:48 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/17/2025 08:00:48 PM EDT.